Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 18th December, 1953, for the Christmas Recess—met at Half-past Two o'clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

WRIT ISSUED DURING THE ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Speaker acquainted the House that he had issued, during the Adjournment, a Warrant for a new Writ, for Ilford, North, in the room of Sir Geoffrey Clegg Hutchinson, M.C., T.D., Q.C. (Chairman of the National Assistance Board).

Oral Answers to Questions — SYNTHETIC DETERGENTS

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further inquiries he has made into the safety of synthetic detergents used by housewives for domestic purposes.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now make a further statement about the effects of detergents on sanitary fittings.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I must await the report of the Committee on Synthetic Detergents, whose appointment I announced on 15th May last, before I can make any statement.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that many housewives find that these detergents irritate the hands, and would not research into their effect on the skin be much more beneficial than the spending of vast sums of money on the advertising of these products?

Mr. Macmillan: I hope to receive the interim report very soon.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR WALES (PRINTING ARRANGEMENTS)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the date on which his Welsh Office received a request to print the document circulated on behalf of the Advisory Council for Wales; and to what extent priority was given to this work in his Department.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the memorandum issued by the Council on 7th December, 1953. Preliminary notice was given by the Council to my Welsh Office on 3rd December that copies of a document would be required on 7th December. The manuscript draft was supplied early on 7th December, and copies were duplicated on the same day.

Mr. Thomas: As this document included a very severe personal attack upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department and Welsh Affairs, will the Minister state whether he consulted his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, or whether he will give a guarantee that further attacks by this body will be so obligingly published?

Mr. Macmillan: The Welsh Council is an independent body, and I do not propose to try to control its decisions. All we do is to give it the courtesy of our office in an endeavour to help it.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Bradway Compulsory Purchase Order

Mr. P. Roberts: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the reasons for the delay in announcing the result of the public inquiry into the City of Sheffield (Bradway) Housing Compulsory Purchase Order, 1952.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I hope to announce my decision on the Bradway Compulsory Purchase Order very shortly. It is a difficult case and time has been taken to give detailed consideration to objections of owners and occupiers of land and to the importance of agriculture and amenity on the one hand and to the city's large housing need on the other. Decisions which were given in March last have enabled the corporation to go ahead for the next two to three years.

Mr. Roberts: As this matter has now been under consideration for over a year and three months, can my right hon. Friend say how soon "very shortly" will be?

Mr. Macmillan: It will be as soon as I can reach agreed decisions on these difficult claims. I have made arrangements for decisions to be taken which will ensure the supply of land for the programme two to three years ahead.

Stoke-on-Trent

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) how many dwellings were built by the Stoke-on-Trent local authority during 1953; and what was the cost of two-bed-roomed and three-bedroomed houses without the inclusion of services and sites;

(2) how many local authority dwellings in terms of each 1,000 of the population have been built during 1953 in Bournemouth, Coventry, Bradford, Sunderland and Stoke-on-Trent.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I regret that I cannot add to the information published in the Housing Return.

Housing Act, 1936 (Sections 2 and 5)

Mr. Mitchison: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will give an estimate of the number of houses let under contracts to which Section 2 of the Housing Act, 1936, applies.

Mr. H. Macmillan: No, Sir. I have no information on which to base such an estimate.

Mr. Mitchison: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities, other than rural district councils, have made inspection of their districts under Section 5 of the Housing Act, 1936, in 1951, 1952 and 1953, respectively; and in how many cases in each year he has exercised any of his default powers under Part VII of that Act with regard to the duty imposed by the said Section 5.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not yet available, but it is clear, from the large number of unfit houses all over the country which have

been the subject of action by local authorities, that inspections are proceeding. The answer to the second part of the Question is "None."

Insurance Schemes

Mr. Hay: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) which are the local authorities that operate schemes for insuring the contents of houses let to tenants and owned by the local authority;

(2) in what respects he considers that there is a doubt as to the legality of schemes operated by local authorities for insuring the contents of their tenants' dwelling-houses; and what action he proposes to take to clarify the position.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Local authorities do not have to inform me about such schemes, and I know of two authorities only which operate them. I have no authority to interpret the statutes, but I am advised that, unless a local authority have a financial interest in such contents, they have no powers to operate insurance schemes.

Mr. Hay: Would my right hon. Friend at this stage say which local authorities of which he has personal knowledge are operating such schemes? Is there any action he can take to ensure that local authorities are not straining the statute by having schemes of this kind?

Mr. Macmillan: The action does not lie with me. I only gave what I thought was the interpretation of the statute. The action would lie with the district auditor.

Deferred Demolition (Exchequer Contributions)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) whether he is aware that, unless the proposed Exchequer contribution towards the cost of deferred demolition is increased, an intolerable burden will be imposed on local authorities, like Islington, which contain an unusual proportion of houses built nearly 100 years ago; and if he will take steps to remedy this;

(2) on what basis he has calculated the proposed Exchequer contribution of £3 per separate dwelling towards the cost of houses bought for deferred demolition;

(3) what representations he has received from local authorities about the inadequacy of the proposed contribution from the Exchequer towards the expenses of local authorities in buying houses for temporary occupation.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Since all these questions are to be discussed in detail tomorrow, in the Committee on the Financial Resolution, I hope the hon. Member will agree that it will be more convenient to deal with them at that time.

Mr. Fletcher: It would be very convenient if the Minister could, in the meantime, circulate some figures giving an answer to Question No. 15. It would also be convenient if he would bear in mind the very widespread dissatisfaction that is felt among local authorities about the complete inadequacy of his present proposals.

Mr. Macmillan: As we shall be discussing this from 3.30 to about 8 o'clock tomorrow, I think it would be better to leave it until then rather than deal with this complicated subject by Question and answer.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Minister aware that the information might indeed aid us a great deal in the discussion we shall have?

Management (Model Rules)

Mr. Parkin: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) if he will draw up a code of model rules, to be added to as experience accumulates, for the assistance of local authorities in managing their housing departments;

(2) whether, following the experience of a case which has been brought to his notice, he will circularise local authorities giving guidance on the principles and procedure which should be observed in considering evictions from council-controlled dwellings.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The management of houses and flats under the control of local authorities is, by statute, a matter entirely for the authorities themselves. My predecessors and I have, after seeking the advice of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, from time to time circulated some general guidance as to the principles of allocation, transfers, exchanges, rent and general management

problems. I would certainly be ready again to consult the Committee, which is a statutory and representative body, on whether the proposal contained in the hon. Member's Questions could usefully be followed.

Mr. Parkin: I appreciate the terms of the Minister's reply, but is he aware that in connection with the case mentioned in the second Question a very wide range of Press comment was excited, and from the more responsible section of the Press the Minister was urged to give the type of considered guidance for which I have asked?

Mr. Macmillan: That is why I said I would consider asking the Statutory Committee, whose duty it is to advise me on these matters, whether they could usefully give me some guidance, which I could then pass to the local authorities. But I do think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that were I to try to deal from Whitehall with the housing problems of millions of people it would really be an impossible task.

Mr. Wade: Arising out of Question No. 18, would the Minister consider the possibility of seeking greater co-ordination and co-operation between his Department and the welfare authorities responsible to the Ministry of Health in dealing with the difficult problem of providing temporary accommodation for those families which are being evicted from council-controlled houses?

Mr. Macmillan: We do what we can, but we do not want to take away from the responsibility of local authorities, but rather to assist them.

Mr. Hay: If my right hon. Friend eventually adopts the suggestion, will he include in the guidance the advice that they should not operate questionable schemes of insuring tenants' furniture?

Slum Properties (Ownership)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has considered the proposal, details of which have been submitted, to strengthen the powers of local authorities in dealing with slum properties, the actual ownership of which is difficult to establish.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Yes, Sir, but I am not at present inclined to impose a new obligation upon all owners of property in the area of a local authority in the hope—which may well prove illusory—of establishing the identity of a limited number of them.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that further action is urgently required to kill the Brady-Waters slum racket which is now operated behind a network of companies by an impudent rogue who calls himself E. W. Leslie of 11, Baker Street, 77, Gloucester Place and other London addresses?

Mr. Macmillan: It is really no use making a law which cannot be enforced. Under Section 168 of the Housing Act, 1936, there are already powers, and I do propose, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has no doubt observed, in the First Schedule of the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill now before the consideration of the House, to strengthen the powers of action, which is the thing that matters, in the event of not being able to trace a particular owner.

Mr. Jay: Can the Minister not do anything immediately to stop what really is an intolerable swindle? Is he aware that hundreds of families all over London are living in houses in a shocking state of repair, paying rents for years and getting no repairs done?

Mr. Macmillan: If the right hon. Gentleman would look at the First Schedule, to which I have referred, in the Bill which will soon be passed, he will find that, for that very reason, we have taken powers to deal with the owner not able to be traced by the method laid down.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that a great number of hon. Members are advising tenants of Brady houses in London and elsewhere not to pay their rent?

Requisitioned Properties (Repairs)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will revise the cuts he has imposed on the repair programmes of requisitioned properties, as a result of which Lambeth Borough Council and other metropolitan boroughs have been compelled to dismiss building workers.

Mr. H. Macmillan: No, Sir, not on present information. The limitation was imposed on the recommendation of a working party which included representatives of all the local Authority Associations. They expressed the belief that more was being spent on these programmes than could be justified in present circumstances.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that by forcing local authorities to allow requisitioned properties to fall below an adequate standard of repair he is not only creating unemployment in the building industry but is also placing considerable hardship on the tenants and owners of these requisitioned properties?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made many allegations against me, but I hope he will not feel that in the two years in which I have held office I have done anything to increase unemployment in the building industry?

Sir H. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend say whether a working party is a long name for a committee?

Mr. Macmillan: It is a modern name.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Cement Dust Nuisance, North-West Kent

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what reports he has received from his inspectors about the conditions experienced in December over a wide area of North-West Kent, as the result of heavy deposits of dust from cement works; and, in view of previous representations made, and undertakings given, what action he now proposes to take to ensure that the local residents are made reasonably free of this nuisance.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I am advised that there is at present no known method of completely eliminating dust from cement works. The dust arresting plant in use at the Thames-side works, when in full operation, attains a high degree of efficiency, but a small proportion of the dust escapes, and the total escaping from a large number of kilns is enough to give rise to complaints in dry weather. These


problems still await solution, but they are receiving constant attention by my inspectors and the cement manufacturers.

Mr. Dodds: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the early months of 1953 he said he believed that when the machinery was in order the matter would be satisfactorily settled, but, since there is now some doubt about dust coming from many other factories, will he not agree to hold a public inquiry for which almost everyone in North-West Kent is asking?

Mr. Macmillan: We are informed that when the machinery is working satisfactorily about 95 per cent. of the dust is properly dealt with, but there is trouble because this machinery is sometimes out of action for purposes of repairs. I really think that the best thing is to press on with the best designers and experts who are working on it to see whether a full solution can be reached. I do not think—although I will consider it—that a public inquiry will do the work which can only be done by expert technicians.

Television Station Site, Hessary Tor

Mr. J. J. Astor: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now announce his decision about the use of the Hessary Tor site for a television station for the Plymouth area; and whether he is aware of the concern at the delay since the public inquiry was held in September last.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I expect to announce my decision before the end of the month. I regret the time taken since the public inquiry; but there is here a serious clash of important interests, of national as well as local significance. At the same time difficult technical questions are involved. I have, therefore, given special attention to the whole problem in the hope of arriving at a wise decision.

Mr. Astor: But is the Minister aware that in the South-West there is public concern at the delay over this decision, and that if he can give a decision by the end of the month it will considerably speed television coverage to the South-West?

Mr. Macmillan: I hope to make a decision during this month.

Mr. G. Wilson: Is the Minister aware that this matter also affects Cornwall, which at present has no television service at all, and that the delay in giving the decision is causing further delay in providing a service there?

Telephone exchange, victoria street

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government on what date he granted permission for the building of a telephone exchange on Christchurch Green, Victoria Street, and what were his reasons for so doing rather than directing it should be built on a less delectable site.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I have not granted any permission for the building of a telephone exchange on Christchurch Green, Victoria Street, which is allocated in the County of London Development Plan for public open space. My noble Friend the Postmaster-General has a proposal to erect a telephone exchange on the site of the ruined church and the adjoining vicarage standing behind the Green and fronting Caxton Street. This land is not included in the proposed public open space and is allocated for office use in the Plan.

Mr. Stokes: That is only a difference; but is the Minister aware that this site must be worth at least £200,000 an acre? Is he aware that when I was in office I stopped this sort of depredation on this side of Victoria Street? Does he really think it suitable to build a telephone exchange on a live site like this instead of on one of the many dead sites on the south side?

Mr. Macmillan: The question is completely different from that on the Order Paper.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister do me the favour of answering my question? Does he not think it is the responsibility of his Department to stop vandalism of this kind by other Departments?

Mr. Macmillan: I have not had the good fortune of holding the position the right hon. Gentleman held. It is not part


of my Department's concern. When I read the Question I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was objecting to the use of what ought to be an open space, but I now understand that he does not object to building on a site which ought not to be built on according to the Plan, but is saying that it ought not to be a telephone exchange but something else. That is another question, and I will see that it is passed on to the appropriate Department.

Planning Appeals

Mr. A. J. Irvine: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the total number of planning appeals lodged with his Department against refusal of planning permission by local planning authorities during the year 1953; and the numbers of such appeals allowed, dismissed and withdrawn, respectively.

Mr. H. Macmillan: There were 4,456 appeals lodged with my Department during 1953. During the same period 1,013 were allowed, 1,206 dismissed, and 1,341 withdrawn or otherwise settled.

Mr. Irvine: I am much obliged for that information. Is it not a fact that these figures show a substantially increased number of appeals, and is that not partly attributable to the failure of local planning authorities to set out in clear terms the reasons for their decisions, as I think was pointed out by the Minister in his Circular No. 61 last year? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind in this connection the importance of expressing in clear and comprehensible terms decisions from planning appeals issued and made by his own Ministry?

Mr. Macmillan: I will consider that suggestion, but I think the hon. Gentleman, who has great knowledge of this subject, will agree that laying down principles is one thing, while the difficulty arises in their precise application to an enormous number of individual cases. Although the number of appeals is rising, I think that is mainly because we are getting on more rapidly with the planning decisions, and the whole thing is now taking shape as it was meant to do when it was first started.

Town and Country Planning (Reports)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether his Department will resume the pre-war practice of the Ministry of Health of publishing an annual report on housing and town and country planning, and of the extracts from such report, in the convenient form formerly adopted.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I have decided to resume the practice of publishing annual reports.

Mr. Irvine: Is the Minister aware that that information will be received with a great deal of satisfaction?

Oral Answers to Questions — "BURGHERS OF CALAIS"

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Works whether he is now able to state when the "Burghers of Calais" will be moved from the present pedestal; and where it is proposed to place this work.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): It has not yet been possible to find the money for this work, which I agree would be an improvement. When it is possible, my right hon. Friend hopes to get agreement for the group to be moved to a more central position in the Victoria Tower Gardens.

Dr. Stross: Will the Minister inform his right hon. Friend that there is great public interest in this matter, that thousands of people would like to see this piece of sculpture properly shown, and that the sum of £4,000, which is apparently the stumbling block, is not really a very great sum, taking everything into consideration?

Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend is aware of the public interest in this matter, but it is not merely a question of £4,000. There are ancillary services in these gardens which my right hon. Friend has in mind and which will cost another £14,000, and there are other works of rather greater importance on the Houses of Parliament Vote.

Oral Answers to Questions — RETAIL PRICES INDEX

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour if he will publish a list of the goods taken into account in the retail prices index; and if he will state the percentage weight of food items in the index.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): A detailed list of the many items covered is given in the published description of the index entitled "Interim Index of Retail Prices—Method of Construction and Calculation." The weight assigned to food at the price levels ruling in November, 1953, represented approximately 42 per cent. of the total for all items.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware of the widespread loss of faith in this index as a matter of calculation because it did not register the rise in the cost of living last year? Will he speed up the production of a new index which will show the real extent to which the wage packet has been devalued?

Sir W. Monckton: In the past this index has been criticised because it has attributed too much to food; now apparently it attributes too little. I wonder whether, following the middle course, it is not very nearly accurate.

Mr. Gower: If a new index is produced will my right hon. and learned Friend keep this index for the purpose of comparison?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE (PERSONAL CASES)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour on how many occasions Trevor Tooth, of Bignall End Cottage, Bignall End, Stoke-on-Trent, has been prosecuted for failing to appear for medical examination for the Armed Forces; and what penalties have been imposed.

Sir W. Monckton: Three times. Fines of £5, £20 and £30, respectively, were imposed.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that those who know this young man well, sincerely believe that he is a genuine conscientious objector and regard it as a grave error that he was struck off the conscientious objectors' register? Will the

Minister find some means of reconsidering this case, and will he say what limit there is to carrying on the summoning and penalising of a young man who is sincerely determined not to participate in military service?

Sir W. Monckton: The policy in this matter has not changed. I must say that there is great difficulty if the man has, as he has in this case, taken the appropriate steps to go to the tribunal and the appellate tribunal and has failed. When the statute has given him an opportunity and he has failed, I cannot regard him as exempt. I can only say that if he undergoes medical examination as required under the Act he will have an opportunity of presenting his case for exceptional hardship. I have no power to do more than that.

Brigadier Medlicott: Would this young man, in other circumstances, be supported if he decided to exercise a conscientious objection against coming out on strike?

Mr. Yates: asked the Minister of Labour why National Service man 22872618 Private Godfrey Rudge, Birmingham, was graded Al, having had perforated ears from childhood.

Sir W. Monckton: The National Service medical board was aware of Mr. Rudge's condition but he informed the board that he had not had any discharge for some years. Nevertheless, the chairman of the National Service medical board, before placing Mr. Rudge in Medical Grade 1, referred him to a consultant aurist who reported that the man's ear drums, though scarred, were intact and that there was no active disease present.

Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that in spite of that, if that did happen, this man was sent to Egypt within four months and had to be invalided back to this country due to perforated ears? Surely there must be something wrong. Will the Minister make sure that a most adequate examination is made, because there is great public disquiet in Birmingham about these cases?

Sir W. Monckton: I can only say that this was a case in which the board did the proper thing in consulting an aurist, and the grading of this man was confirmed by


two subsequent Army medical examinations. If what the hon. Gentleman says has happened, I am sorry to hear it, but I cannot blame the medical board, and the matter is no longer within my jurisdiction.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Catering Wages Act

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Labour if he will set up a committee, presided over by a prominent Queen's Counsel, at which evidence may be taken on oath, to inquire into the operation of the Catering Wages Act and the difficulties and problems it causes to the hotel and catering industries.

Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. The wages boards established under the Catering Wages Act are, in general, functioning satisfactorily. With regard to the Licensed Residential Establishment and Licensed Restaurant Wages Board, which was reconstituted in the autumn of 1952, as my hon. Friend is aware, at the request of the board I have subsequently appointed four committees under the Act to assist it in respect of the various types of establishment covered. In view of these recent developments, I do not think another inquiry is desirable.

Sir W. Smithers: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that information from all over the country shows that the operation of this Act is doing great harm to the industry, especially in places where they have a seasonal trade, like seaside resorts, where people have to make their living during three or four months in the year? Is it not a fact that the only satisfactory method is for conditions and wages to be a matter of private arrangement between master and man?

Sir W. Monckton: The Catering Wages Commission in 1950 held an exhaustive inquiry into the operation of the Act, and it was found that statutory machinery was essential until such time as it could be replaced by collective bargaining based on mutual understanding and good will. I shall be very glad when that happy time comes.

Arbitration Tribunals

Mr. Isaacs: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the policy of his Department as regards the issue of

instructions or guidance to the various arbitration tribunals regarding the level of wage increases which they should award.

Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir. The policy of my Department, and, indeed, of Her Majesty's Government, has been and remains not to issue instructions or guidance of any sort to these bodies. On the contrary, the Government have scrupulously respected their independence.

Mr. Isaacs: I am sure that the House and the community will be very pleased to have that information. May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he is aware that the slightest hint of a suspicion among the workers that arbitration is being tampered with will kill it? I hope that his answer will satisfy them.

Sir W. Monckton: There will be no tampering with arbitration as long as I hold my office.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Mental Hospitals (Conditions)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that his decision not to inquire further into the problems of mental hospitals in Scotland has given concern to medical and administrative circles in Scotland; and whether he will now make inquiries into the question of deficiencies in staff, overcrowding and the spread of tuberculosis, which were out with the terms of the Russell Committee.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): Questions relating to mental health, such as those referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, which were not covered by the terms of reference of the Russell Committee, are kept constantly under review by the Scottish Health Services Council, and I do not regard any additional inquiry as being necessary.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the people responsible for this work are distressed by the conditions which exist in these hospitals? Will he, as the Minister responsible for the conduct of these hospitals, cause inquiry to be made to see that they are being run without danger to the health and conditions under which these people have to live?

Mr. Stuart: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the aspects to which his Question refers are constantly under review. They are not covered, as a matter of fact, by the terms of reference of the Royal Commission set up in England, but I am quite satisfied that an official inquiry into the matter at the present time would merely cause duplication of work, because we already have the necessary information.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer gives the impression that he is completely satisfied? Is he aware that people who are constantly in touch with this work are not completely satisfied, and will he take steps to find out the cause of the dissatisfaction?

Mr. Stuart: I have not said that I was completely satisfied as to staffing, and so on, but I am satisfied that we have the necessary information to enable us to do the best we can.

New Public House, Glasgow

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the town planning authority for Glasgow were consulted prior to the granting of the new licence for a public house situated at 3–5, Avenue End Road, Glasgow, E.1.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am informed that they were not, but that they granted planning permission thereafter.

Mr. Forman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this public house is situated less than 50 yards from one of Glasgow's largest public parks and recreation grounds—a recreation ground used largely by children and adolescents—and that it will hinder the Glasgow authority in keeping good order here and have a bad effect on the children and adolescents using the recreation ground? Further, can he say if this public house is to be a tied house? If so, will he name the brewery company behind this application?

Mr. Stuart: As to the last part of that supplementary question, I am not aware whether or not it is a tied house: that was not asked in the Question. I am assured that the matter is being handled in a perfectly proper manner. Licensing courts have complete discretion to grant or withhold licensing certificates, and I

shall not interfere with them, but if the hon. Member wishes to invite me to visit the public house when it is in full production, I shall consider that invitation.

Police (Agents Provocateurs)

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of disclosures in the recent trial of Duncan Watt and others, what guidance he has given to police authorities as to methods of obtaining evidence.

Mr. J. Stuart: None, Sir.

Mr. MacPherson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very considerable public concern in Scotland as a result of this trial, and does he realise that what he is telling the House and the people of Scotland amounts to this, that the police will be free to use similar methods in the future as they used in connection with this case?

Mr. Stuart: I am quite satisfied that the police did not use any improper methods. Of course, I have read articles in the Press which give a very inaccurate description of what took place.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Did the Minister say that he approved of these agents provocateurs being used in conspiracy trials? Are the police to understand that they are to be free to use these despicable methods in any similar trial that comes along?

Mr. Stuart: I have already answered similar Questions on 8th and 15th December. There is no case for saying that agents provocateurs were used. [Hon. Members: "Yes."] On the contrary, I have been into the matter and I have satisfied myself that the action of the police was perfectly proper.

Ullapool Pier

Mr. John MacLeod: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the work on the proposed extension of Ullapool Pier to commence.

Mr. J. Stuart: Tenders obtained by the Pier Trustees for a preliminary investigation of the site of the extension have been approved. The plans for the extension will then be adjusted and, if all goes well, I should expect work on the extension to begin during the summer. An earlier start


may be made on the approach bridge and other ancillary works for which tenders have been invited.

Mr. MacLeod: Will the Minister please do everything in his power to see that this extension is carried out with the minimum delay, in the interest not only of local but national development?

Mr. Stuart: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have no desire whatsoever to delay this matter. The tenders and plans were approved on 25th February, 1953, so far as my Department and the Treasury were concerned, and we are not responsible for any delay since then.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Mau Mau Casualties (Money Awards)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has read the notes from companies of the First Battalion of the Devonshire Regiment, now serving in Kenya, published in the November issue of the Journal of the Devonshire Regiment, a copy of which is in his possession, and in particular the statement that the commanding officer offered an award of £5 for the first Mau Mau killed and the records of scores kept by the different companies of Mau Mau killed; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has read the sections of this journal and brought them to the attention of the court of inquiry presided over by Lieut.-General Sir Kenneth McLean. He hopes to make a statement on the outcome of that inquiry soon after his return to this country.

General West's Broadcast

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the statement made by Major-General West in a television broadcast that one year was long enough for any soldier to stay in Korea represents the policy of his Department; and how many of our troops have been in Korea for a longer period.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: This statement is broadly in line with the effects of the existing War Office policy by which no man is held to serve in Korea for more

than one winter or for more than 18 months as a maximum. In practice, this policy results in the great bulk of men being relieved after about 12 months, although, in order to stagger reliefs, a small proportion of them are held longer. While the number of these men is not readily available, I can say that not more than one in four serves for more than 12 months and few serve for over 15 months.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not obvious from the hon. Gentleman's reply that War Office policy is in conflict with the statement made by Major-General West in his broadcast? He said that a man should not remain in Korea longer than 12 months, but it is apparent that men are retained there longer than 12 months.

Mr. Hutchison: No, it is not in conflict. What Major-General West said was that one year is about enough for anybody to do there, and about one year is what they do.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for War how many cases of cowardice on the part of British troops have occurred in Korea; and whether the statement by Major-General West on such cases in a television broadcast was made with his consent.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: There was only one case in Korea, apart from Fusilier Lydon, in which there was a specific charge of cowardice, but there have been a number of other cases which may have involved an element of cowardice dealt with under other charges. I shall be giving further details in reply to a later Question. Major-General West's appearance in this broadcast was approved by my right hon. Friend; but, since the programme was unscripted, there was, of course, no question of his prior approval of the statements made. My right hon. Friend has, however, already informed the right hon. Member that he does not think anything that Major-General West said on this subject is open to criticism.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the letter I have received from his right hon. Friend is far from satisfactory? This matter will have to be raised as an important issue on a subsequent occasion. Meanwhile, may I ask him whether the script of the broadcast, which is no doubt in his possession, as


it is in mine, does not convey the impression that Major-General West specifically asserted that there had been several cases of cowardice in Korea? Would it not be advisable that, if there were such cases, instead of the statement being made in an unscripted broadcast, it should be made by the War Office?

Mr. Hutchison: I am quite sure that if the principle of allowing generals to make unscripted broadcasts is approved—and my right hon. Friend agrees that it is desirable—one cannot control what in fact is going to be said.

Mr. Shinwell: While I express no objection to high ranking military officers indulging in unscripted broadcasts on television or the radio—that is a matter for the War Office and themselves—is it not undesirable for statements to be made which appear either to be in conflict with War Office policy or convey information which, for some reason or other, the War Office does not convey either to the country or to the House?

Mr. Hutchison: The War Office is constantly conveying information to the country in one way or another. I do not think the War Office can anticipate everything that may come out in an unscripted broadcast.

Mr. Wigg: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

National Service Men, Malaya

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for War the reason for sending 30 National Service men to Malaya in December, 1953, who had completed all but eight months of their service in the Army; and how long they would be available for active service in that country.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: Under present regulations men, whether Regulars or National Service, may accompany their units to Far East Land Forces if they have at least eight months' residual service. It was under these rules that these National Service men accompanied the First Battalion, The Royal Hampshire Regiment, to Malaya. They will be available for service there for some 7½ months if they come back by air, or about a month less if they return by sea

Mr. Shinwell: But as these National Service men—30 of them—were sent to Malaya, not by air but by sea, which probably took about five or six weeks, and as they require to become acclimatised and to undergo some jungle training, is it not obvious that the period of active service will be no more than 4½ months, and is this not thoroughly uneconomical?

Mr. Hutchison: We have to balance our commitments with our manpower. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have made a calculation for himself as to what the effect upon this problem would be if National Service were reduced to 18 months.

Mr. Shinwell: I can discuss that with the hon. Gentleman at any time the Government care to raise a debate on the subject, but may I ask him now whether, in regard to the subject of the availability of manpower, which he raises in reply to my question, he says that it would not have been possible to have secured the services either of 30 Regulars or 30 National Service men with longer than eight months to serve? Does he say that?

Mr. Hutchison: I do not say that, but this is not unique, because there are occasions, in carrying out the unit relief system, when sometimes men with the whole eight months out there are not available to us; but on the other hand there are many occasions when we get men with much more. We have to balance all of them together.

Cowardice Charges, Korea

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War how many soldiers were court-martialled in Korea during the period of hostilities; how many were charged with cowardice, desertion, or mutiny; how many were convicted and what sentences were imposed; and in how many cases war correspondents attended the trials.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on trials for cowardice which have taken place among British troops in Korea.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for War how many courts-martial have taken place in Korea in which the charge was cowardice; and if he will state the details of convictions and sentences.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: I am sorry that the full information asked for in the first three parts of Question No. 42 is not readily available. I can, however, say that one man was court-martialled in Korea during hostilities on a charge of cowardice and was found not guilty on that charge but guilty of an alternative and less serious offence. This man is now serving a sentence of four years' imprisonment. There were 26 serious cases of desertion for which men were sentenced to imprisonment for three years or more. Finally, there were 11 convictions for mutiny for which sentences of two years' detention were imposed.
I cannot give the numbers asked for in the last part of Question No. 42. I can, however, say that my right hon. Friend, from the inquiries he has made in Korea and from certain war correspondents, is satisfied that there has been no withholding of information or refusal of facilities in that theatre.

Mr. Swingler: Can the hon. Gentleman give an absolute assurance in regard to the charges of cowardice that this information is correct and that General West's statement was incorrect? In view of General West's grossly inaccurate statement on a subject of which he is apparently ignorant, what steps have been taken to ask General West to withdraw the statement that there had been several courts-martial for cowardice and that correspondents were not able to attend those trials?

Mr. Hutchison: The hon. Gentleman is confusing a straightforward charge of cowardice with other cases in which an element of cowardice may come. Furthermore, I think we must give General West the credit for having got well over the difficulty of having to deal with a completely unrehearsed broadcast.

Mr. Shinwell: Why does the hon. Gentleman persist in evading this issue? What good does it do to the War Office or to the country to do so? Is it not true to say that from the actual script it appears that General West said in reply to a question—he may have been inaccurate; it may have been an accident, a slip—that several cases of cowardice occurred? Is that true or not?

Mr. Hutchison: On the technically legal interpretation of a charge of cowardice it was inaccurate, and I have now given the accurate figures.

Hon. Members: Why not say so before?

Mr. Greenwood: Are there any charges of cowardice pending?

Mr. Hutchison: I should have to have notice of that question, but I believe not.

Mr. Wigg: If general officers are to be given facilities to make inaccurate and tendentious statements, will the War Office take steps to make sure similar concessions are given to private soldiers?

Mr. Hutchison: If it were considered desirable that private soldiers should make unscripted broadcasts I have no doubt permission would be granted. What the War Office says is that it must have knowledge of who is going to make the broadcast; that is all.

Mr. Thomson: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Press in Korea will be given full information in advance of all courts-martial pending?

Mr. Hutchison: I want to remove any thought in the mind of the House that there was any attempt to side-track or eliminate the Press from any of these courts-martial. In 1950 an agreement was reached between the War Office, the Newspaper Society, the Newspaper Proprietors' Association, and the News Guild requiring prior notification of forthcoming courts-martial. It was then arranged that notice should be given within reasonable time before the assembly of the court by public announcements posted at the headquarters of the convening authority, and outside the building in which the court-martial was to assemble. No further notification by the military authorities is obligatory, but in practice newspaper correspondents in overseas theatres of operations such as Korea receive information through direct liaison with the military authorities, and that works perfectly well.

Sapper's Death, Middle East

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Secretary of State for War on what date the report of the military court of inquiry, set up to


deal with the wounding of 22624079 Sapper Crangle, Royal Engineers, was available to the unit commander in the Middle East.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: On 8th April last year.

Mr. Jones: Can the hon. Gentleman say why, if the unit commander was in possession of the information on 8th April, he wrote a letter on 10th April to the parents of this boy completely misleading them as to the cause of his death?

Mr. Hutchison: The hon. Gentleman must not confuse the finding of a court of inquiry with the finding of a postmortem. The court of inquiry was concerned with discovering the reasons for this stabbing affray, which took place out of bounds in the Canal Zone. That did not connect and would not normally connect the unfortunate death of this lad from nephritis with the stabbing affray.

Mr. Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman now telling us that the lieut.-colonel in charge of this unit, knowing this boy had been stabbed in the right arm and the right side on 27th March and that he died on 7th April, though he actually died from shock brought on by nephritis, did not realise that the stabbing on 27th March had nothing at all to do with the boy's death? Does it not appear that he was deliberately trying to mislead the parents?

Mr. Hutchison: No. There was absolutely no attempt, nor will there be any attempt, to try to mislead the parents. That has always been the policy of my right hon. Friend, and it is a policy we shall pursue. I think the hon. Gentleman in the position of the commanding officer would be very hesitant, not being a medical man, to attribute death to something until medical authorities had stated death was due to a particular cause. I think it was only reasonable to treat the matter in that way.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BOARD (CHAIRMANSHIP)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Prime Minister why he did not recommend the extension of the appointment of the previous chairman of the National Assistance Board.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): There are no grounds, on precedent or principle, for suggesting that the holder of an office should necessarily be re-appointed when his time expires. Nor is it any reflection on the holder of such an office, if he is not asked to serve again. Mr. Buchanan has performed valuable services for which Her Majesty's Government are sincerely obliged to him, and I am glad that he is willing to give the benefit of his experience by remaining a member of the Board.

Mr. Dodds: Whilst accepting that it was perfectly in order to make the change, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain, when it is generally accepted that Mr. Buchanan has done a great job of work and when it is said that the Board has been administered with humanity, why he cannot continue to keep this man in this great job—or is it simply a case of political patronage at its worst?

The Prime Minister: The five years appointment had expired, and—

Mr. Dodds: Why not continue it?

The Prime Minister: —although Mr. Buchanan agreed to continue for a short period while a selection was being made, it is intended that five years should be the normal period for these appointments

BRITISH ARMY (NEW RIFLE)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister why he agreed that the new British rifle should be superseded by the Belgian FN ·300.

The Prime Minister: The reason why I agreed was that after prolonged examination and discussion the Belgian rifle is considered by our military and expert authorities to be more suitable. It has proved itself to be equal in performance to the latest British pattern, and the fact that it is simpler in design makes it quicker and easier to make and maintain. Moreover, there is a greater prospect of the Belgian pattern being adopted by a number of N.A.T.O. countries than is the case with the latest British type. Thus we are promoting standardisation. I may also remind the House that a uniform round has been


achieved and accepted by all N.A.T.O. countries. Any delay which has occurred has been well worth while especially in the lessening tension which has marked the last two years. I may also say that arrangements will be made, if desired, for Members of Parliament to see the rife.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the Prime Minister aware that this announcement will prove a great discouragement to the brilliant British inventors who, over a long period, carefully invented and designed this new British rifle which, as the Prime Minister well knows, is undoubtedly the best that has ever been devised in the world? Is he aware that it is absolute nonsense to say that the Belgian rifle is equal to ours, since the weight of the round alone means that every rifleman will have to carry a greater burden into battle to be able to fire the same number of rounds? Is not this decision entirely due to the weakness of the Prime Minister in not standing up to the Americans for something which he knew was right?

The Prime Minister: I am quite ready that it should be attributed to me, and whether it is attributed by the hon. Gentleman to weakness or to wisdom I am entirely indifferent.

Mr. Shinwell: But on the question of whether this is a better rifle than the proposed British rifle, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the discussions which took place in Washington by military experts, and in the presence of representatives of the United Kingdom, Canadian and other Governments, the British military experts declared—and would not give way on this point—that the British rifle was far superior both to the Belgian rifle and to the new American rifle? Is he not aware of this?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the date which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, but these events are continually moving forward.

MENTAL ILLNESS AND DEFICIENCY (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister if he is now in the position to announce the composition of the Royal Commission to inquire into matters affecting mental deficiency.

The Prime Minister: It was announced on 18th January that the Queen had approved the appointment of Lord Percy of Newcastle as Chairman of the Royal Commission. The names of the other members of the Commission will be announced shortly.

Mr. Lewis: While thanking the Prime Minister for that information, which no doubt he, as well as myself, read in the Press, may I ask him whether he can explain why it has taken over three months for him to come to some decision as to the composition of the Commission? How long does he think it will be before he will be able to announce the names of the Commission?

The Prime Minister: I should not like to hold out any hopes which would be disappointed. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman puts the Question down next week I shall be able to forecast a date.

FOUR-POWER MEETING, BERLIN

Mr. Dodds: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the disagreements between the Four-Power representatives in Berlin over deciding in which building the Big Four talks should take place; and what instructions have been given to the British representative as to his attitude to this question.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): I have been asked to reply.
The hon. Gentleman will have seen the announcement that agreement has been reached between the representatives of the Four Powers in Berlin as to the buildings in which the meetings of the four Foreign Ministers should take place.

Mr. Dodds: I have, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people have been gravely disturbed at the great length of time which was taken in dealing with this very trivial matter? Does he recall that some weeks ago in the House he got a very fine reception when he said it was our aim to meet the Russians at any time and any place? Why should our representatives in Berlin not follow that line? Does he not think there is not much hope for the future unless some one acts sensibly in small matters of this sort?

Mr. Eden: I disagree with the hon. Member; we are meeting at the time the Russians have chosen and at the place the Russians have chosen, so that they can be satisfied that what I said has been entirely fulfilled. But I have to consider whether the building is a practical one, whether the arrangements can be made and whether it is suitable for all purposes. As for the 40-hour discussions, hon. Members who have had experience of these international gatherings will know that if we have consecutive translations things take a very long time indeed. One thing I want is simultaneous translations, which I cannot have in a series of buildings scattered around Berlin.

Mr. Marlowe: What guarantee has the House that the hon. Member who asked the Question really is the hon. Member for Dartford?

UNITED STATES (BRITISH TRADE)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister what plans the Government have prepared to meet the possible slow-down in buying by the United States of America, with the consequential effects on British trade.

The Prime Minister: Our economic plans should certainly be adapted to meet any changes of conditions which can be foreseen but it is not thought that it is desirable to announce in advance specific measures against hypothetical situations.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Prime Minister not aware that a recession is taking place in America and that, owing to the loss in dollar earnings, unemployment will develop in this country? Can he not elaborate in a little detail what plans the Government propose to deal with that situation?

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (STRIKE BALLOTS)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation which will make strikes illegal until such time as a secret ballot of the workers, under Government auspices, has been taken.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have no intention of departing from the established

tradition in this country under which the trade union movement is left to manage its own affairs to the fullest possible extent without Government interference. I am advised that the disadvantages of my hon. Friend's proposal would greatly outweigh any advantages.

Sir W. Smithers: Would it not be a good thing if the workers were able to express their opinions without fear of victimisation and dictation by their own trade union leaders?

ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING INDUSTRY (WAGES DISPUTE)

Mr. Isaacs: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make with regard to the strikes in the electrical contracting industry.

Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir. The Court of Inquiry which reported on the dispute between the National Federated Electrical Association and the Electrical Trades Union early in October suggested that further negotiations should take place between the parties. This suggestion was followed but no agreement was reached on the union's claim for an increase in wages. The court had recommended that if that contingency arose the matter should be referred to arbitration. This was not however acceptable to the Union, who notified the Association that, unless they heard further from them, their members in various parts of the country and on various sites would be authorised to take official action. Officers of my Department had discussions with the parties but no basis for a settlement could be found. The Association thereupon reported a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Order. I have the report under consideration but, as matters stand at present, I have not thought it desirable to refer the dispute to the Tribunal.
During the past week the Union have called their members out on strike in different places and for varying periods, and yesterday they called a one-day stoppage in the industry. As a counteraction employers are refusing employment today to men who were on strike yesterday. There are indications that some further intensification of the dispute is under consideration.
A dispute also exists between the Electrical Contractors' Association of Scotland and the Electrical Trades Union and has been reported by the Association under the Industrial Disputes Order. There were no strikes in Scotland last week but the one-day stoppage applied to Scotland. I understand that there was a complete resumption of work in Scotland today.
I am continuing to watch the position. The services of my officers are still available to the parties, but there is no indication that they could usefully take any action at the present moment.

Mr. Isaacs: The House, I am sure, will be grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the full statement he has made, but in view of the latest development and the possibility of the dispute being extended, will he take the earliest opportunity—although I realise that sometimes one can be so early as to make a mistake—of bringing the parties together to see if he can get an adjustment?

Sir W. Monckton: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying what he did about the dangers of acting too soon. One can often suffer from the itch to do something when one had better not do it. I am only satisfied that, as matters stand at present, there is nothing useful that I can yet do. If the chance comes, I shall not hesitate to take it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings of the Committee on Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) [Money] and on the Licensing (Seamen's Canteens) Bill [Lords] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.34 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Sir Thomas Dugdale): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I think that the House will agree that on this occasion the Bill is well named, because it touches upon very many aspects of the work of my Department, certainly so far as the agricultural side is concerned.
Let me at the outset tell the House that the principal reason for this Bill is the Government's desire to continue certain temporary or emergency legislation which would otherwise expire. First, the present legislative authority in the Agriculture Act, 1947, for the grants for field drainage and water supply in England and Wales and for the agricultural lime subsidy in the United Kingdom would expire next summer unless something were done about them. Therefore, if the House wishes them to continue, legislation this Session is necessary if these grants are not to come to an abrupt end.
Then there are certain other Clauses of the Bill, particularly Clause 8, which deals with the collection of kitchen waste, etc., Clause 9, which deals with the prevention of bee diseases, and Clause 12 which relates to a Scottish point, which have been prepared in pursuance of the Government's policy which was expounded by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in the recent debate on the extension of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, when he said that one of our objects was to elect such of the remaining powers under the emergency legislation as seemed to serve an important continuing public purpose and, in suitable cases, to put in hand the preparation of legislation. That, of course, has been done.
I think it will be convenient if, without any further general observations, I now go through the Bill Clause by Clause to explain its provisions to the House. None of the Clauses, as the


House will see, has any connection one with the other; certain groups have a connection, but they are on entirely different subjects.
Clause 1 extends the present powers of the Government to make grants towards the cost of approved schemes of field drainage—ditching, tile and mole drainage—and, in addition, of farm water supply carried out by owners and occupiers of agricultural land. These grants were introduced originally in 1940 as part of the war-time food production campaign under powers which have been renewed from time to time, but which, as I have already indicated, will expire next August. The rates of grant for these works are normally 50 per cent. on ditching and field drainage, 40 per cent. on schemes to supply water from a private source and 25 per cent. when the source is a public main.
The need for this work, as I think the House will agree, is still pressing, as is shown by the number of schemes coming forward annually at the present time—roughly 24,000 for field drainage and 6,000 to 7,000 for water supply. The need for Exchequer assistance also continues because these schemes are relatively costly, but they give the owner or occupier a very definite long-term return on expenditure, but only a long-term return. Yet, in my view, it is essential that we should secure the early benefit to food production which this work does undoubtedly confer.
I think that those who are interested in this subject will agree with me that better field drainage is very often the essential first step to improving any piece of land. Some hon. Members may recall the retort of the principal of one of our agricultural colleges when, in one of his lectures on crop husbandry, he was asked, "What ought I to put in wet land," and the answer was, "Drains, you fool." There is a great deal to be said for that very simple answer. Farm water supply schemes raise crop yields and milk production and cut down unproductive and unpleasant manual work, besides affording farmers, farm workers and their womenfolk a long-wished-for amenity.
As far as Scotland is concerned, under its 1937 Agriculture Act it already possesses comparable powers to those for which I am now asking the House. I am

confident that hon. Members on either side of the House who are familiar with rural conditions will agree that these powers ought to be continued after August of this year.
Clause 2 extends existing powers to make other grants which are of enormous value to the production campaign; namely, contributions towards the cost of applying lime. These powers also would otherwise expire next August unless we pass legislation through the House. Clause 2, unlike Clause 1, extends to the whole of the United Kingdom. It provides for a prolongation of the powers of the Secretaries of State and myself until 1959 and also, in addition, for five-year extensions afterwards if orders subject to affirmative Resolution are submitted to and approved of by Parliament.
A lime scheme subsidy was introduced by the Agriculture Act, 1937. It has operated ever since without really any major change and is done by payments made direct to farmers. I think that those who have watched its operation in the countryside will agree that it has undoubtedly proved one of the most successful means of aiding production and farming efficiency. Since its introduction, the use of lime in the United Kingdom has risen from about 500,000 tons in 1936 to six million tons in 1953.
From these figures the House will see that this revival in the good practice of liming must continue, or we shall lose what we have already gained in improvedsoil fertility. But lime deficiency still exists, particularly in our poorer grasslands, and this will not be remedied until farmers use more and more lime. We would like to see lime being applied throughout the United Kingdom at the rate of approximately seven million tons annually. If hon. Members wish, as I do, to see our land in the best possible heart, and the improvement of our grassland continue and best results flow from increased use of fertilisers, they will support this Clause also.
Clause 3, a technical Clause, deals with smallholdings and enables us to clear up two small difficulties that have arisen in the administration of our grants to county councils in respect of smallholdings provided under Part IV of the Agriculture Act, 1947. The provisions of Clause 3 do not imply any change in the


Government's smallholding policy and are designed only to facilitate the provision of smallholdings.
The passing of this Clause will now give full statutory authority for certain of the grants to smallholdings authorities which, with Treasury approval, we have up to now had to make on an extra-statutory basis, subject to noting in the Ministry's appropriation accounts. If any hon. Member cares to ask detailed questions on the Clause, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reply at the conclusion of the debate. I emphasise, however, that there is no change in policy and that the Clause is inserted only to deal with a technical point.
Clauses 4 to 6 introduce amendments into the constitution and proceedings of the agricultural land tribunals set up under the 1947 Act. The House is now familiar with the working of these bodies. Their main task is to hear and to decide finally on the basis of the facts cases in which decisions and proposals of mine, in my present capacity as Minister of Agriculture, or of county agricultural executive committees, acting under powers delegated to them by me, under the Act and also under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, are referred to them at the request of one of the parties concerned.
The most notable of these references are concerned, of course, with notices to quit and proposals to dispossess occupiers or owners for failure to observe the rules of good husbandry or good estate management. In day-to-day talk these references are often termed "appeals," but the House should realise, as, I know, does the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), that what the tribunal really has to do is to hear the whole case again and reach an independent decision. When the 1947 Act was going through Parliament, I and other of my hon. Friends, sitting at that time on the Opposition benches, attached very great importance to the operation of these tribunals. It is still my view that they are one of the linchpins of the 1947 Act. I am satisfied that they function as a valuable safeguard for the rights of the individual in this difficult field. I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the work that they have done.
The national bodies representing owners and occupiers of agricultural land—that is, the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers'Union—have made it clear that they have full confidence in the tribunals and the way in which they have discharged their duties. I believe that this view is shared generally by informed public opinion.
In these Clauses 4 to 6, it is the intention to make three improvements in the constitution and powers of the tribunals. These changes, I hope, will not raise any controversial issues, but they have been urged upon me from well-informed sources in the light of experience over the past six years. Their object is threefold: first, to make the independence of the tribunals abundantly clear, because we believe that to be of paramount importance ; second, to enable them to award costs where necessary; and third, to enable any aggrieved persons to have as of right a wide right to access to the High Court on questions of law by way of reference from the tribunal. That is the main purpose of the alteration which is set out in Clauses 4 to 6.
Most of the remaining Clauses can be dealt with fairly shortly at this stage, although, no doubt, we shall have an opportunity during later stages of the Bill to go further into details.
Clause 7 brings us to an entirely different field in our agricultural life and deals with sugar. It increases the upper limit to the contributions by growers and the British Sugar Corporation for the programme of sugar beet research and education under the provisions of the Sugar Industry Reorganisation Act, 1936, and the Sugar Industry Act, 1942. With rising costs all the time and increases in the programme of work, particularly—and I should like to emphasise this point—on such matters as the campaign against virus yellows, which is a definite problem and must be fought and won, the maximum contributions payable at the moment, which are 1d. per ton of beet from the grower and 6d. per ton of sugar from the Corporation, have proved insufficient.
As far as this particular Clause is concerned, both the National Farmers' Union and the British Sugar Corporation are anxious, as indeed are the Government, that the work should not suffer, and it is accordingly with their full approval


that this Clause has been introduced, providing a maximum rate of contribution of 3d. per ton of beet both from the grower and from the British Sugar Corporation.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: A maximum?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes.

Captain Duncan: Surely it is
…threepence or such larger sum…

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes,
…threepence or such larger sum…
Up to now the farmers have contributed rather more than the Corporation, but under the new proposals they will contribute exactly the same.
In Clause 8 we go to another field of our activities, namely, to the collection and processing of kitchen waste for animal feeding stuffs. Hon. Members interested in particular in the problems of the small pigkeeper will remember how early on in the war the enterprise of one of our municipalities introduced us to a new regional dish, the "Tottenham pudding." This was not for human consumption, but it was much appreciated by the pigs at that time and afterwards.

Mr. George Brown: And we consumed it secondhand.

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, we consumed it secondhand.
Thanks to the enterprise, not only of the Borough of Tottenham, but of many other local authorities, some 300,000 tons of pig food is collected annually and much of it processed. In this connection I should like to pay a tribute to the work of the late Lord Morrison not only for the very great interest that he always took in the activities of his native Borough of Tottenham, but also for his work for many years as chairman of the Waste Food Board.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley(Angus, North and Mearns): I am sure my right hon. Friend would not like it to go out that the late Lord Morrison was a native of Tottenham. He came from Aberdeen of which he was intensely proud, but Tottenham was his adopted home.

Sir T. Dugdale: I accept that, but he was identified with the borough which he adopted later in life.
The powers and duties of local authorities in this matter rest essentially on the Defence Regulations and, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, it is the Government' sintention to cut down this emergency legislation and replace it, where necessary, by permanent statutory powers as quickly as possible. Local authorities and others will thus know exactly where they stand in the future.
As the House has already been told in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) on 26th November, current directions to local authorities to collect and process kitchen waste for animal feeding-stuffs are to be removed, so that in future local authorities will be themselves free to decide whether they continue in the scheme or not. The purpose of Clause 8 of this Bill is to give them the necessary powers to do this, because their powers under public health legislation would be insufficient. Under Clause 8 local authorities will be enabled to collect kitchen or other waste for feeding to animals and to maintain processing plants at which the waste food is sterilised before distribution for stock feeding. I sincerely hope that, wherever it is possible to run this service economically, local authorities will continue to do so.
In addition to the local authorities, private firms and individual collectors add considerably to the total of waste material for feeding, but now that the scheme is on a voluntary basis we think it right to relieve them of restrictions, save only those which are concerned with animal health. Therefore, in areas where licences are at present required for private collectors they will still be required, but the criterion will be whether the collector's plant can be approved by my veterinary officers.
These licensing powers derive from the Defence Regulations which will continue for the present, and I propose to review the matter in the light of the desirability or otherwise of permanent legislation when I receive the Report of the Gowers Committee on foot-and-mouth disease later this year. There are also provisions in this clause for the prevention of pilfering from waste containers, for the avoidance of injury to human beings and animals from materials placed in the containers, and for the making of byelaws for public health purposes, all of


which I hope will commend themselves to the House as being sensible provisions.
From there I go right away to insects—to bees. Clause 9 deals exclusively with them. It is another example of making permanent provision for continuing action at present taken under emergency legislation. At the present moment I have powers to control diseases of bees in this country, but I have no power to ensure that only healthy bees are imported.

Mr. G. Brown: I was wondering when the right hon. Gentleman mentioned powers to control diseases of bees whether he would not consider eliminating them altogether, and so save us a lot of trouble?

Sir T. Dugdale: They are not so easy to eliminate as all that. The position at the moment, as far as the importing of diseased bees is concerned, is safeguarded by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who issues licences to import bees only if health certificates are provided by the responsible authorities in the countries of origin. This safeguard can be applied only so long as imports themselves are controlled, and I think the House will agree that it is desirable that a permanent power to ensure that only healthy bees are allowed to land should be given to the agricultural Ministers. Bee diseases, such as acarine and nosema, can be so devastating in their effect, and the beneficient activities of bees are so vital to agriculture and horticulture, that I feel confident the House will readily agree that the possession of the proposed powers is necessary.

Mr. M. Follick: Does every bee have to be examined?

Sir T. Dugdale: No, we do not have to examine every bee, but a certificate has to be obtained before the bees are imported into this country. In exercising the powers given by the Clause, naturally I shall have regard to advice given to me by the Bee Disease Advisory Committee, of whose work I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation. This Clause empowers the Government of Northern Ireland to introduce similar legislation for that country if they so desire.
Clause 10 and the Second Schedule which goes with it, which extend to Great Britain, are designed to apply the pro-

visions of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, to the transport of animals by air, whether to or from this country or within the country. From time to time many questions have been asked me in this House on this problem and I think that this Clause and the Second Schedule will meet a definite need in our legislation on this subject. The 1950 Act consolidated earlier Acts, some of which were drafted as long ago as 1894, when there was little thought of moving animals by air. To show what is taking place at the present time, I give as an example the recent air lift of a large number of breeding pigs to Yugoslavia. This illustrates how things have changed and are changing all the time. I think the House will agree as to the need to amend the law accordingly and will not dispute this Clause.
The main step by which the Clause will achieve this is fairly simple. It extends the powers of the 1950 Act to cover aircraft and aerodromes in the same way as vessels and ports. Shipment in or landing from an aircraft will be treated like shipment in and landing from a vessel. In addition, other detailed adaptations of the 1950 Act to cover minor points are considered necessary and will be found in the Second Schedule to this Bill. There is also a subsection of this Clause enabling the Northern Ireland Parliament to make similar adjustments of their diseases of animals legislation if they so wish.
Clause 11 deals with a different field altogether and makes quite minor amendments to the Seeds Act, 1920, but again I emphasise that it introduces no new principles. The Clause is designed primarily to deal with the situation brought into prominence by a decision in a recent court case. As hon. Members may be aware, the Seeds Act, 1920, requires certain farm seeds to be sold with a declaration to cover such matters as purity and germination. This declaration must be supplied on or before the delivery of the seeds, unless a licence otherwise provides. If the declaration is not so supplied, or the statement is, false in any material particular, then the merchant becomes liable to penalties.
The recent case made it clear that, in the absence of a statutory statement delivered at the right time, the merchant's contract with the farmer was unenforce-


able, so that not only was he liable to the prescribed penalties, but was in danger of losing his purchase money as well. That was a result which was not foreseen or intended when the 1920 Act was passed, and the first provision of the new Clause puts that matter right. It lays down that any mistake in regard to statutory particulars shall not make a contract for the sale of seeds or seed potatoes unenforceable but, at the same time, the penalties under the 1920 Act will still apply.
The other amendments in this Clause also relate to the statutory particulars of seeds given by a seller and are designed to strengthen the position of the user in regard to possible dispute on variety. Again, this is a technical point but, as I said in introducing the Clause, it does not vary the present policy or introduce any new principles, and is designed only to make the present legislation more fool proof.
Clauses 12 and 13 apply exclusively to Scotland and we have on the Bench with us the Joint Under-Secretary of State who will be willing to supply any further information which hon. Members may require about these Clauses. Therefore, I shall content myself by saying briefly that the object is to enable the Secretary of State to fix minimum rates of wages for persons employed by him under the Scottish Harvesting Scheme, which is a scheme they have to themselves North of the Border. The object of Clause 13 is to extend to Scotland, with suitable modifications, the power to obtain returns which already exists in England and Wales under the Corn Returns Act, 1882.
That brings me to the end of the review of the Clauses of this Bill. It only remains for me to commend the Bill to the House as a useful, if unexciting, Measure whose provisions should be of benefit to agriculture and which will assist the administration of existing legislation. I should like to emphasise that it will assist the administration of existing legislation. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be available later in the debate to answer any points which hon. Members may put to him on any of these many and varied subjects, but I hope that the House will feel disposed to give an unopposed Second

Reading to this Measure and that we shall be able to consider it more fully in the Committee stage.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought this Bill was aptly named the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It is certainly all that. Indeed, I do not know that it would not be better called the Rag-Bag Collection Bill. As the Minister said, there are so many things included which have no connection with one another, and they are of such a minor order, that to collect them into one Measure makes me feel that the Ministry have been looking round all their pigeonholes and cellars to see what was in the rag-bag that they could fish out and make into a Bill.
When I was in the country recently, I heard it said that all the confusion there has been, and still is, as to where we are going, and what we are doing is because the Minister and his Department had all gone to sleep. I did not think then that it was true, and obviously they have not been asleep but have been down in the cellars looking for things to put into this Bill. One can only hope that now they have brought them into the daylight and put them into a Bill, the industry and the country will get some evidence of the Minister and his Department being on the job.
Before discussing specific items, I am bound to express surprise that, with so many really vital issues on which there still is no clear understanding in the country or the industry, and which need positive action on the part of Her Majesty's advisers, we have not had something much more substantial than this Bill either as the first measure of the Government on our return after the Christmas Recess or as the first Measure of the Minister.
The right hon. Gentleman himself has a number of important things on which legislative action is bound to be taken and on which some decisions have soon to be announced. I should have thought that we could have got by until he was ready to do that, and that then we would have had some real occasion to tidy up these other small matters. I find it hard to believe that there is nothing more useful than is contained in this Bill available in the Ministry for translation into


action by the Minister. Indeed, if there is nothing more useful or substantial than this, we shall be in a good deal of trouble.
I notice the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden) on the benches opposite. I am reminded of the speech which he made in Northern Ireland, when he was obviously having a very rough time indeed. He assured his constituents that if only they would not shoot him at that moment but wait until early in February—I think until 5th February—he was sure that he would have some important news for them. It is now 19th January and I suppose that this is the important news. I doubt whether this will save him from being shot when it is made public in Northern Ireland. I agree that important news is awaited by farmers in Northern Ireland and elsewhere; but when they learn that all we are to have is this Bill, I doubt whether they will feel like sparing any cartridges which they may have ready for the hon. Member or for the Minister for that matter.
As for the particular reasons for this Bill, the Minister himself has shown the need to continue drainage and lime assistance schemes. But it is difficult to feel, from reading the Bill, that that is the hub of the matter. I should have thought that many people would regard Clauses 4, 5 and 6 as in fact the substantial reasons for and the kernel of the Bill. Those Clauses certainly seem to me to be the important part of it. Even with regard to these Clauses, I am rather surprised that the Minister has done what he has done in this Bill and then left it at that. One is giving away no secrets when one recalls that it is a very long time since the Ministry began to have informal, behind-the-scene discussions with the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union and other people about the operation of the principal Act, the way in which its machinery was working, and the question of possible amendments.
I seem to remember a number of suggestions being made a long time ago which were very much more substantial and more full of meaning than anything contained in this Bill. I am not clear whether this means that the Minister has concluded all those discussions with the organisations concerned and that they have agreed that nothing more than this

needs to be done, whether it means that he has decided that, despite what they have said, he feels that nothing more than this needs to be done, or whether we are just being given this Bill as something to go on with while something more substantial is being prepared.
It would be rather interesting to be told. Are those discussions concluded, has it been decided, after the Review, that the 1947 Act was so wisely drafted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that no substantial amendment needs to be made to it? Have those amendments which were made at one stage by the various organisations concerned been withdrawn or knocked down or merely pigeonholed?
I should have thought that there were some substantial problems about the operation of various pieces of machinery under Part II of the Act that ought to have deserved consideration. I should have thought that we would have been advised to withhold piecemeal, rather small-scale amendments of the Act until we had made up our minds about rather more substantial problems under that Part. I doubt, for example, whether the Minister or anybody else would disagree that one of the real problems under Part II of the Act is the long-drawn-out nature of the proceedings even at the moment. County and district committee members say much the same thing. A good deal of keenness, interest and enthusiasm on the part of those whose job it is to operate all these provisions has evaporated, simply because the thing had become so long-winded, so long-drawn-out and so uncertain that it really does not seem worth while.
I know that there are hon. Members opposite who dislike Part II of the Act. It so happens that in nearly every case they are the gentlemen who also dislike Part I. The hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) will no doubt seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. He has brought himself to quite a favourable position as one of those who honestly and straightforwardly take the provisions of Part II as an outrageous interference with the freedom of the individual; but, as he showed the other day when we were discussing the horticultural industry, he has also shown that he dislikes the protec-


tions which we seek to give the industry as a corollary.
That is an understandable point of view with which I disagree, but it is a very dangerous business for the industry if the provisions of Part II are to be whittled down and, as has been done, are to be the occasion in the country for a smearing attack. It would be a dangerous business if this were to be the prelude, as it certainly would be, to the whittling down of Part I of the Act and of the guarantees and protections which the industry needs.
I should have preferred it if, before throwing a sop to the hon. Member for Orpington and the Cheap Food League and others who have joined this band wagon, the Minister had waited until he had examined the more substantial point. I regard Part II as an essential part of the Act. I do not think that the farming industry can expect or can have the special underwriting and protection which are in Part I unless it accepts its obligations to the rest of the community, which Part II of the Act sets out to achieve.
I should like to see the job of those who have to administer the Act made easier rather than more difficult. I believe that the county committees, the farmers, the farm workers, and the landowners' representatives who serve on these committees, do a first-class job of work. It is often distasteful and, even when not distasteful, it is very unlikely to pay any dividends personally in the neighbourhood where one has to work and live; but it contributes an enormous amount to the raising of the standards of our farming and to increasing the output of food from our fields.

Mr. David Renton: On a point of order. While it is very interesting to have a general discussion on the operation of the 1947 Act, will it be in order, Mr. Speaker, for hon. Members on both sides of the House to pursue this discussion?

Mr. Speaker: On Second Reading of a Bill of this sort it is very hard to say what cannot be discussed, because on Second Reading one can not only urge arguments against the miscellaneous provisions in the Bill but one can argue that certain other provisions should have been included. I think that the drift of the argument of the right hon. Member for

Belper (Mr. G. Brown) was in that direction.

Mr. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I think you have put it, I do not see how I can discuss whether this Bill is adequate or good unless I say how we got to this position. In so far as this Bill is a sop to those who have been attacking the operation of Part II and the methods of those who operate it, I regard it as an unfortunate way of approaching the business. Those people who are doing their job, and who have been attacked, represent a first-class piece of industrial democracy. We should stiffen support for them and help them rather than seek to make their position more difficult.
The first thing that will happen is that the proceedings, which are already over-lengthy, will not be made any shorter by the provisions of this Bill. Therefore, the likely outcome of the provisions of this Bill will be to increase the discouragement that many members of county committees already feel in carrying out their duties.
The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that a second complaint about the situation as it exists is the way in which this is done. He said that the tribunals themselves do not in fact constitute courts of appeal; they are independent courts presided over by barristers of, I think, seven years' standing, accompanied by assessors drawn from panels of farmers and landowners. They do not review the decision of the executive committee, but—in the words of the Minister—hear the case completely afresh. They adjudge it, as it were, de novo.
The county committee, the estate management committee, or the husbandry committee send two or three members to inspect a farm which has been under supervision for a long time already and decided to recommend a certain course of action. The person concerned then asks that the case be referred to the tribunal. Some months later—perhaps in another season—the tribunal also sends two or three members to judge the farm visually in what may be altogether different conditions.
I should have thought that was already a legitimate criticism of the scheme as it now operates, but this Bill does nothing to deal with that problem. It does not


face it and does not seek to find a new basis of judging the efficiency of a farmer or a landowner. It does not seek to put the matter on a rational, understandable basis, but merely makes the most minor change in the appointment of the second court, the tribunal. All the existing problems of the sketchy examination, the chancy examination and differences in standard between one county and another, go on.
The Committee, which originally spent a lot of time on the job, finally find that their opinion is thrown over by another set of people coming from elsewhere and having none of the knowledge which the original committee had of the many circumstances which went to make the case one which, in their view, should be considered for dispossession. I should have thought that the Bill stands to be attacked for being quite inadequate in carryingout its declared purpose. It deals with small issues which achieve little when they are dealt with and it achieves nothing with regard to the important points which ought to be considered.
There is the other criticism of the repeated applications, constantly putting a man in peril year after year. Perhaps he has got across the landlord and, although the landlord's application is turned down, a new notice is served. I imagine that the Bill is meant to hit at that, but it does not directly hit at it.
I shall have something to say about the specific provisions of the Bill, but there is nothing in it to say that this is the sort of case in which costs are to be awarded, and nothing to stop costs being awarded against the tenant farmer. Far from being a deterrent to repeated applications by a big landlord determined to get rid of his small tenant, the Bill may be a deterrent to the small man defending his own interest before the tribunal. Unless we have a great deal of clarification about that, I think the Minister has shown here that he has addressed himself to a very small point and failed to deal with a substantial point which needs to be dealt with. I think it really is a pity that this Bill should have been introduced on this scale, should have taken so long in preparation, and yet the Minister has not dealt with the important rather than the smaller problems.
I turn to some of the provisions in Clauses 4, 5 and 6 which I wish to criticise. It is difficult, Mr. Speaker, to make a speech on Second Reading which does not sound like a speech in Committee, but that is because of the nature of the Bill. The first provision of Clause 4 is to change the method of appointment of the assessors. They are still to be chosen from panels drawn up by farmers and landowners but, instead of the Minister nominating a chap on the panel whose turn it is to serve that day, the chairman is to be given that responsibility. I imagine that someone will exercise that duty for the chairman and the work will be done in much the same way as at present, and there will in fact be no change. Someone in an office somewhere will tick off a member of the panel whose turn it is for duty.
If hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Orpington, who have been making this their pet hobby, think that they are given anything here, I am quite sure they are wrong. The position after the passage of this Clause will be exactly the same as before. I do not think that it should go out to the country that this Bill makes any practical or effective change in this matter; it does not. So far as the Clause goes, I do not object to it. If it is thought better, theoretically, to have the responsibility borne by the chairman, so be it. The appointments will be made from the same panels in the same way, and I leave it at that.
I am a little worried about Clause 5, which gives the power to award costs. One would have thought it possible to get at the real problem of repeated and irritating applications designed to get rid of a tenant simply by giving the tribunal power to make a decision which would hold for a longer period than one year. Why should the tribunal not have power, when it is thought proper, to say that the decision is binding for two years or for three years? It seems absurd to allow power to award costs which may be used against the case at which we are not hitting as well as against the case at which we are hitting—a power which may be used as a deterrent to the small man defending himself as well as against the big man acting in an arbitrary fashion.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with this matter, because the Minister used a wide phrase and there is


a phrase in the Bill which is rather wider. The Minister said that there is power to award costs "where necessary." The Bill says the tribunals may award costs where
there are special reasons for doing so.
Who is to lay down what are the special reasons? Is each tribunal chairman to do that himself? Is the Minister to give general guidance or general direction? Will there be an opportunity for the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association and, of course, Parliament, to know in advance in what kind of circumstances this power to award costs will be used? I think we ought to know in advance. The Minister ought to say that he will lay down what kind of reasons, in his opinion, constitute special reasons. We ought to be told what sort of line the Minister is to take. If it is to be left to the tribunal to take the decision in each case, I would regard this change in the law as a not very happy one. That will want looking at again before I shall be willing to part with the Bill when it is in Committee upstairs.
On the question of the appeal to the High Court—on which there has been a lot of discussion recently—I am not at all clear about what is provided in the Bill. No one should think that what we are being asked to provide here is an appeal by the farmer to the High Court from the decision of the tribunal. Therefore, if that is intended to be a sop to the hon. Member for Orpington and his friends, I imagine it completely misfires at the beginning. What we are doing is to provide for an appeal on a point of law by the man concerned, by the other party or by the Minister at the time of consideration or after the decision has been taken.
I had hoped that the Minister would tell us today what sort of points of law he has in mind. What points of law, are likely to arise? Is it the form of the notice? Is it whether the notice was duly served, or whether a map was properly drawn? Are those the sort of points of law? If they are, they leave out of consideration the real matters on which the case is determined.
It seems to me that on this basis we might well find a case properly determined by the committee and the tribunal, in which it is in the interests of everybody—the industry and the country—that a

particular action should be taken to get a particular piece of land better farmed. Yet we are now adding an additional hurdle which, because of some breach of a small point of law, can mean the breakdown of all that has been decided. No one will know at any stage when the matter is over.
In addition to telling us what will be the points of law and whether any of them have arisen, will the Minister say why he is ready to intervene on a point of law after the decision has been taken and announced, even if nobody else does? Why does he want to add this additional uncertainty, and why do so after the decision has been announced? This provision will put into the minds of everybody operating this Bill and the Act still more doubt about whether it is worth doing so. This is really a small thing, and, if it works, a very tiny thing indeed, but it is likely to arouse a great deal more doubt and is likely to make Part II of the Act even less used than it is at the moment.
We are told that the matter will go to the High Court. Will it end there? Suppose a case has been won by the tenant farmer at the tribunal, and then, at some later stage, perhaps three months or six months after—it may be longer, we do not know what period is to be allowed—the Minister decides to intervene on a point of law and takes it to a High Court judge, who rules in his favour. That may mean that the tenant farmer has lost. Has the tenant farmer then no right of appeal? Can he not take the case to the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords. As I read this Bill, he cannot; it is intended that he should accept that final decision of that first court.
I am no lawyer, and I do not know in what other fields of our legal system there is absolutely no appeal from the court of first instance. I should be glad if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would tell us whether it is deliberately intended to provide no appeal whatever for the man who may have won his case at all the lower levels, which are not law courts as we generally understand that term; that he should lose his case because the Minister, who is not a party in the original case, intervenes and takes it to a High Court judge, and then the man has no right of appeal against that decision. Is that deliberate? If so, I


cannot think why, unless it is that the Minister wants to prevent the delay from becoming even longer. But the way to do that was not to embark upon this procedure. Having embarked upon it, I should have thought that the Minister was bound to carry this procedure to its logical conclusion.
My conclusion about Clauses 4, 5 and 6 is that they could not have been less thought out had the Department really wanted to achieve that result. They could not have begged more questions than they do. They could not have raised more unsolved questions than they do. They will do little except add to the delay and uncertainty that already exist in the operation of Part II of the Act.
I turn to one or two other matters that occur to me on other Clauses. Clause 1 deals with drainage and water supply grants. There will be no objection in the House to these being made permanent, but is it not time that we reconsidered a number of matters about this provision? I am told as I go around the country—I was also told when I was at the Department—that there are a number of ways in which we could make the drainage grants more effective if we widened the scope of them—if, for example, we made the maintenance of the ditches subsequently eligible for grant or, better still, made the proper maintenance of ditches afterwards a condition of the payment of the grant for the original work.
That has been suggested many times, but it is not provided for here. Has the Minister considered it and judged that it cannot be done, that it is impracticable? If so, on what grounds? I should not have thought that it was. There is a good deal in the point. What has happened to the recommendations of the Heneage Committee? I remember several years ago one of my duties when I was still at the Ministry of Agriculture was to go and officially thank that Committee for their illustrious report. It was full of the most useful and important material. Quite a lot has happened since then. I should have thought that if we are making these grants permanent, the Government should now be ready to say something about the Ministry's intentions about that report.
Unless we do so, much of the money we are expending on drainage grants is literally going down the drain. One can see

many instances of a farmer doing this work and seeing it nullified because the other chap next to him is not carrying out such work and the water from his land is going on to the other farmer's fields. We have at the moment no power to compel that other farmer to do the drainage work on his land simply on the ground that lack of it is adversely affecting someone somewhere else. If we cannot show that it is affecting his own farming we cannot, under the 1947 Act, do anything about it. The Minister must have considered this matter, and I am surprised that he has brought forward this proposal without saying a word about it.
I turn to Clause 3, which deals with smallholdings. The Minister said that it was a highly technical matter, by which I suppose he meant that it was too technical for him, and that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would deal with it at the end of the debate. I should be very interested to hear what this proposal is all about. I understand that progress in providing smallholdings under the 1947 Act is extremely small indeed. Is that because the £150 rental limit is there and is holding us back? I should not have thought so. It applies only to the 50–75 acre limit.
Is it thought that the £250 rental limit will make for more progress? I should not have thought so. I shall be glad to hear. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will give us figures of smallholdings now being provided and say in what way this provision means that the difficulties which are holding up the provision of smallholdings have been dealt with. If they have not been dealt with, why have not the real difficulties been dealt with instead of these proposals being brought forward?
As to the reference about giving power for account to be taken of the change in the borrowing rates between the date of applying for sanction for the scheme and the carrying out of the scheme, I suppose that is because a Tory Government can be expected to put up interest rates by the time the scheme can be carried out. It is a corollary to the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer under this Government.
The only other Clause which worries me is Clause 8. I was glad to hear what the Minister said about my colleague the late Lord Morrison, not only for his


work in this House and in another place, but for his particular contribution to the question of the better organisation of the collection and use of waste material. When I left the Ministry of Agriculture and went to the Ministry of Works, I found the late Lord Morrison there as Parliamentary Secretary, and he proved to be a first-class colleague in every way.
The Minister is now putting this matter on what is called a permissive basis and allowing every council to decide for itself. I do not worry about that, but I should have thought the great lesson taught by Lord Morrison—we all remember the Waste Food Board and the "Tottenham pudding "campaign—would have been learned by the Minister. It was that, in the interests of animal health, if collections of waste food are made at all they ought to be processed at some place where animals are not kept. I should have thought that Lord Morrison proved the effect of taking unprocessed swill or waste food to places where pigs were being kept and having it processed there. Why make that permissive? Why unlearn that lesson which we learned at such great cost?
I can understand the Minister allowing councils to decide whether or not to permit such collections, but this Bill would have been better drawn if, in any case where it was decided to collect, it was made compulsory that food waste should be processed before arrival at a farm or holding where livestock is kept. I am glad to hear that we may keep an open mind about that until the Committee stage.
I suppose that there is nothing about this Bill which is highly objectionable. The Minister himself says that it does nothing new. It creates no new legislation, it merely interferes with or messes about with existing legislation. I believe it will achieve practically nothing. When we have passed the provisions contained in this Bill, we shall have achieved practically nothing; but we shall have interfered with a good deal of legislation that is already working satisfactorily. Matters will be made much less easy and still more doubt and uncertainty will be created—which seems to be the main mission of the Minister and of this Government in the field of agriculture. I think it is a great pity, when there is so

much waiting to be done in the industry and when so many people are waiting to know what is to be the next step, that a Bill drafted in this way should have come before the House.

4.43 p.m.

Sir Waldron Smithers: The Minister emphasised Clauses 4, 5 and 6 and the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) devoted the major part of his speech to those Clauses. Although this Bill leaves much to be desired it is a step in the right direction, although only a very small and a timid step. Clauses 4, 5 and 6 prove that a determined people by their importunity, can compel a Minister to take action. For what it is worth this concession has been forced from the Minister.
Clause 4 seeks to amend what has been a travesty of British justice and I am proud, though humble, at being able today to speak on behalf of hundreds of farmers and smallholders who are the salt of the earth. If I remember rightly, for two or three years 50 families were turned out of their smallholdings each year, and, last year, I believe the figure was 88. During the last year or two I have had scores of letters from these people. I have sent them on to the Ministry. Those letters were heart-breaking and revealed human tragedies. If these people were better organised politically perhaps their grievances would receive better attention. These grand people are country folk and have not the ability to express themselves as well as some others who have threatened to strike, and who are better organised.
I maintain that anyone, whether he be in an exalted position or in very humble circumstances, who is a subject of Her Majesty, is entitled to have his grievances justified or refuted, and to have the right to appeal to a traditional court of law on points of fact and merit. If I understood the Minister aright the concession, if it is a concession, contained in this Bill relates to points of law, but I maintain that those people should have the right to appeal on points of fact and merit, which they have not at present.
I am told on high legal authority that this is the case and that this Bill does not go far enough. As the right hon. Member for Belper said—and though it is an awful admission to make I agree with a great deal of what he has said—


this Bill does nothing. There is no appeal to the High Court for a farmer or smallholder. The fact is that the whole principle of British law and justice is involved in this question of the right of agricultural executive committees to rob a man of his land without his having the right to take his case before a properly constituted court. In setting up land tribunals we have put back the clock 300 years.
Contempt for the rule of law is growing. Lord Jowitt recently stated in a debate in another place that bad fanners were the enemies of society, and Lord Hudson agreed with him. Are they greater enemies of society than criminals? Even criminals have to be convicted before a properly constituted court before they are treated as enemies of society.
There is no appeal, even to a land tribunal, if the Minister likes to proceed under Section 84 of the 1947 Act. Under that Section the farmer is completely at the mercy of the Minister. The 1947 Act provided the thin end of the wedge regarding the nationalisation of the land. Furthermore, it was a breach of the undertakings we accepted as signatories of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, to the effect that everyone should have the right to own property and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of it.
A big farmer who is also a big businessman told me the other day that the only person able to turn a farmer out of his farm should be his bank manager, if the farmer could not make the farm pay. We have heard of case after case of farms which had been in the same family for two or three generations, and where the farmers had been turned out. Yet they had always been able to make a living. I wish to indicate to the House the feelings of some of these men by a few typical extracts from their letters. One writes:
As one badly affected myself I can say that I was completely stunned by the news that all my aims and ambitions were to be arbitrarily smashed. I have seen very many of the men affected and have seen their characters completely changed. Normally happy men become morose, distrustful, embittered. I have seen them broken in spirit and will.
There are English farmers saying things like this when we have a Conservative Minister of Agriculture on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. G. Brown: That is enough to make anyone bitter.

Sir W. Smithers: These men are not Communist agitators, they are decent English countrymen. They feel—and I would like the House to take note of it—that the tribunals are not independent. Whether they are right or wrong they feel that because two members are appointed by the Minister under the Agriculture Act, 1947, and because the tribunal is paid by the Minister, they are. therefore, his paid servants.
The tribunal accept orders from the Minister. As proof of that, at the South Wood ham appeal counsel for the Ministry told the tribunal that it was not to take any account of the merits of any individual cases. This can only mean one thing, condemnation before the hearing commences. I think counsel quoted a Section from the authorisation procedure Act for that statement.
Another farmer says:
The inspection of land was most unsatisfactory. At my own case, only two inspected; at others, they did not approach within sight. They stood on the roadway 150 yards away and could barely see the roof because of the intervening trees. At another, they were, I consider, a good 300 yards away. Two were definitely not in the least interested, with a definitely 'could not care less' attitude. I know, because I went round with them.
Another man writes:
We should have an appeal to the courts. At the present time, the dice is loaded against us.
Another farmer says:
The agricultural executive committees and tribunals should be disbanded but, until then, smallholders and small farmers should have proportional representation on both bodies.
Another says:
Deep resentment is felt that their land should, in so many cases, be handed to friends and relations of the agricultural executive committee and Ministry officials.
I do not know whether or not that can be proved, but this procedure opens the door to nepotism and corruption.

Mr. Renton: Mr. Renton  rose—

Sir W. Smithers: I cannot give way
Another writes:
It is madness that several owners who were refused possession of their land have been allowed to sell to Ministry-approved-persons who have then had the land given back to them. Why, when the owners could and would use the land to the same advantage, should they not be allowed to have it?


Another writes:
It is wrong that the Minister is allowed, after compulsory purchase, to sell or otherwise dispose of the land for any purpose he may deem expedient.
Another dispossessed farmer asked me to ask the Minister a Question. I did not "try it on" at the Table, because I knew that it would not be passed. I was asked to ask:
Will the Minister confirm or deny the rumour that he proposes to change his name by deed poll to Dugdalovitch, so that he can be well in line with the Russian commissars?
That is the kind of feeling that these poor people have. I am not satisfied that the Bill goes far enough and I appeal to the House to bear with me while I plead the case for liberty and justice for the British farming community.
In case my own words carry little weight I want to quote a short passage from a book by Professor Keeton. In his book, "The Passing of Parliament," he speaks of the Town and Country Planning Act and the Agriculture Act of 1947. These are Acts which, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) is reported to have said:
…have so socialised socially created values that the need for land nationalisation no longer exists 
because it is being accomplished in homoeopathic doses.
Professor Keeton said:
The Town and Country Planning Act of gives powers of planning and control on a scale not hitherto contemplated. Moreover, in view of the importance of agriculture in the national economy, the Agriculture Act of 1947 and the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1948 have revolutionised the whole position of the farming community. Because public dissatisfaction with the Town and Country Planning Act has grown rapidly in intensity, the equally far-reaching provisions of the Agriculture Act and the Agricultural Holdings Act have not been so generally appreciated. Nevertheless, they cut right across the traditional development of agriculture in this country, and as the extent of the powers conferred upon the Minister of Agriculture are more widely appreciated there can be little doubt that criticism of this Act and dissatisfaction with the régime it creates will increase sharply.
These two Acts and the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 leave little more to the owner of land than the empty shell of bare title.
The Minister has referred to the point I am about to make. I should like to

draw attention to the statement he made when speaking on 28th January, 1947, about Section 12 of the Act which, in those days, he felt was in need of emendation. He said, speaking in Opposition:
If the Minister relies so largely upon these committees, I am sure he will have no objection to their supervision orders and directions being subject to appeal to the land tribunal. We believe that the effective moment for the farmer or land-owner is the moment when he is put under official supervision under Clause 12, and we take the view that an appeal should be allowed under Clause 12 to the agricultural land tribunal, and we shall move Amendments in Committee to this effect."—[Official Report, 28th January, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 873.]
The Minister will remember that on more than one occasion in the course of the correspondence I have had with him recently I have brought to his notice the views of land agents and valuers who have complained that it is almost useless to make representations against the decisions of the county agricultural executive committees to put a client under supervision. Therefore, an Amendment here, in accordance with the suggestions made by the Minister when in Opposition, is long overdue.
I want to make a constructive suggestion. Certain amendments must be made to the Agriculture Act, 1947, if it is to be brought into line with the British conception of natural justice, and into line with our commitments in the council of free nations. First, trials must be in public. Under Section 84 the Minister decides in private and alone sees the evidence and reports. Secondly, defendants should be confronted with their accusers, in order that integrity, capacity and motive can be tested in cross-examination. Thirdly, costs and damages ought to be obtainable when frivolous and repeated charges are made—such as requests by landlords for a supervision order to be placed upon a tenant time and time again to wear him down financially so that he will quit.
Next, judges should be free of the Executive and entirely independent of the Minister of Agriculture and his agents. Only at the appeal stage before the agricultural land tribunal are the members of the bench known. The judges are the county agricultural executive committees or the land commissioners who are the agents of the Minister. Also, it is imperative in the interest of the


industry that judgment should be expedited in cases under Section 84 where decisions have been delayed for years with the consequent unsettling of the community in the area. The decision in the case of Lake heath, about which I wrote to the Minister, is still awaited, though the matter was referred to the Agricultural Land Commission as early as March, 1949. Farmers in Burwell and Swaffham have been on tenterhooks for years and waiting for months for their objections to be heard.
My last point is that judgment should be taken out of the hands of civil servants, for their true function is to advise and carry out the policy of the Minister and not to be judges administering the law. Lastly, justice must be done and justice must manifestly appear to have been done.
I have frequently pointed out these matters to the Minister without any effect, except for the minor concessions in the Bill. It is essential that the whole of the legal provision of the Act of 1947 should be thoroughly examined in the light of the British conception of what should constitute natural justice, and a comprehensive amending Bill should be brought before the House.
While I welcome this small crumb of amendment, I plead for a comprehensive investigation into the whole matter. Under the Agriculture Act, 1947, a new crime was invented, namely, "inefficient husbandry." It is not defined, and indeed cannot be denned, as it is necessarily a matter of opinion and must fluctuate with world conditions.
Government interference with farming, carried to extremes in the Iron Curtain countries, has failed. I commend to the House two pamphlets recently issued by the Economic League, of 24, Buckingham Gate. [Interruption.] They are two very constructive pamphlets, and if hon. Members opposite do not wish to learn from them they need not take the trouble to get them. Dictatorial regulations have been relaxed in the Iron Curtain countries because they were not getting increased production. Yet a Conservative Minister of Agriculture operates compulsory powers in a free country with the excuse that it will increase production. I once asked the Minister if he could say how much production had increased because of the dispossession policy. Lo and behold! he could not say.
Here is the opinion of a well known big farmer and journalist, a very highly educated man. [Hon. Members: "Name."] I cannot give his name, be-caused he might be victimised. He says this in a letter to me:
There is no appeal at common law. This is the biggest blot of all on our State control of farming. No Briton should be evicted from house and home unless he has the right of appeal to common law against that decision. Every time this Fascist system has come up against the law of the land (as in the Odium case) it has been shown up for what it is, an evil, un-British system of government that should never have been permitted to exist. In fact it stinks.
Yet this is being enforced by a Conservative Minister whose leader's slogan is, "Set the people free."
Seven or eight big farmers whom I have consulted have asked me to make these points today.
In conclusion, if the Minister really wants to increase production, let him resign and close his Ministry. But before doing so—hon. Members opposite will not agree with this—he should repeal the regulations for minimum hours and minimum wages. Fanning is a seasonal industry. At seed time, ploughing time and harvest time we ought to be able to work from dawn to dusk when the weather is favourable. We should, of course, have to pay overtime. I was in France last harvest time, and there I saw the families out in the fields until dark. A big farmer in this country said to me, "It is heart breaking to stand in this valley and hear all the tractors stop working at 5.30 p.m."
I ask the Minister to persuade his colleagues to do all in their power to reduce the farmer's costs by reducing penal taxation and removing controls. Farmers should be allowed to get on with the job, but taxation and controls are killing initiative. If only the Minister would set the farmers of Britain free by removing the controls and persuading the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce taxation, there would be more production throughout the country.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: We always have fun when we listen to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) discoursing on whatever subject he chooses, but perhaps most of all when he begins to touch upon questions of liberty.
The hon. Member does not seem to think much of the Bill, and neither did my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), and I doubt whether anyone else can be found to sing its praises very loudly. The hon. Member also did not think much of the Agriculture Act, 1947, apparently, for he states that it invented a new crime of inefficient husbandry. I should have thought that that was an old crime. I wonder whether the hon. Member is speaking for his party when he suggests that it should not be a crime, or something very near a crime, to have control over a plot of this country and not use it efficiently.

Sir W. Smithers: All I said was that people accused of that offence should have a right of appeal to a court of law on points of fact and merit.

Mr. Mallalieu: The hon. Member said that the 1947 Act had invented a new crime. I should have thought that, in his view, but not in mine, that was a criticism of the Act. The hon. Member spoke about farmers and smallholders as being the salt of the earth and later implied that at harvest time the tractors stopped at 5.30 p.m. and nothing else happened on the farms.

Sir W. Smithers: At ploughing time.

Mr. Mallalieu: The hon. Member did not say that; and even at ploughing time that would not happen. Whenever it is necessary to work, the # agricultural worker will work provided he is given a fair deal.
Some of my hon. Friends and I have had a good deal of quiet fun in noting that the first Bill that we are asked to discuss on returning from the Christmas Recess deals with agriculture. I hope this shows the Government's realisation of the extent to which it is necessary to restore confidence in our great agricultural industry after all that the Government have done or have left undone during the last two years. The Government have, partially at least, forced farmers to abandon their rightful rôle of being specialists in food production and have obliged them to divert their energy and time to the totally different task of trying to dispose of their goods, whether by hawking them round to individuals or

by going to chancy and not always honest markets. I should have thought that farmers might have been forgiven for believing that henceforth the Government have no real interest in increasing food production.
Most of us have been rather sorry for the Minister in view of the position in which he has found himself, for he has obviously been forced by doctrinaire and big business considerations to dam the prosperous flow of the stream of agriculture, which the Government found on coming into office, causing it to overflow its banks, leave its orderly channels and eventually form separate streams all over the countryside going it knows not whither and sometimes stagnating in swampy places.
So eager were the barons of town industry and finance to get rid of their own fetters—which have hitherto forced them to take some notice of the national interest as well as to their own profit-making—that they were determined to use their influence to force the party opposite to a certain extent to weaken agriculture's healthy discipline. They did this because they feared that if they did not the contrast between their own rather unseemly scramble after profit and the orderly progress of agriculture in the nation's interest would become too obvious.
We know, as I hinted just now, that the many condemnations of farmers in widely separated parts of the country, from Yorkshire to Suffolk and from Essex to Wiltshire, have been against not the Minister himself but the Government, and are a measure of the lack of confidence felt by the agricultural industry in the present town-conscious Government of the party opposite. I am sure it is the Minister's warmest wish to be allowed amiably to preside over a prosperous agriculture. The only element of criticism of the Minister himself which has crept into the condemnations of the Government by farmers arises from the fact that they wonder why it is that he has remained in office and allowed the sabotaging of the agricultural industry to continue.
After all, there are in his party magnates of City finance, of town industries, who would very admirably conduct his office, openly, in his place, instead of


doing it from the back rooms of the party. I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) could hardly be spared from his urgent task of sabotaging the nation's efforts in the colonial field in order to be put into the office of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. But there are plenty of others in the party which abounds in City magnates who could do the job just as disastrously. Then the Minister himself might be allowed to go back to his fields and countryside, and be regarded properly by all as the true friend of farming and the countryside.
Now, we have this Bill—a very small matter. I do not think there is any particular part of it to which I take vigorous objection, but I think we can all congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, on having been allowed to save this little thing from the wreck of British agriculture. He has made a slight contribution, as it seems to me, towards increased food production, in that Clauses 1 and 2 provide for an extension of the grants for water supplies to farms and liming. To that extent, we ought to congratulate the Minister.
Whatever the party opposite may think, we on this side of the House still believe that it is necessary that there should be increased food production in this country. At any moment, we might and ourselves in a position in which we are unable to find the dollars, or possibly even less scarce currency, necessary to buy the food we need, and then, of course, the City financiers and the industrial barons will turn, with the whole nation, in an appeal to the farming community to produce more food.
It seems to me that the success of the cry of the nation to the farming community will not depend, unfortunately, solely upon the good will of that community. In my opinion, that good will is unbounded. It will depend upon the extent to which these country folk have been enabled to keep their land in good heart, and the extent to which they have not been forced to abandon their land in the pursuit of the amenities of civilisation even in conditions most uncongenial to most of them, namely, in the towns.
We in the Labour Party believe that it is necessary to increase our production

of food at this time, even though the prophets of a slump in America, with its consequent disasters here, are proved to be wrong. We believe that we should increase food production even though we do not come into a period of catastrophic international strife in the near future, as I for one have never thought that we should; and we believe that it is necessary to increase food production here even though, at the present moment, there may be food surpluses in certain parts of the world, for instance, in North America.
The trouble is that there are still enormous areas of the earth's surface where food surpluses are very far from being in evidence, and where, indeed, there is actual want. The trouble is that those areas where want is greatest are the very areas where food production lags behind most. I know that increased food production in areas of surplus or even of sufficiency is by no means a complete answer to this problem of food supplies in the underdeveloped areas, or areas less developed than those of North America; but, at any rate, it is the first part of the answer and a necessary part of the answer, to be followed later by the encouragement in the backward areas themselves of means of production of food which will supply their own needs.
It is because I believe that this Bill makes a very small contribution towards increased food production that I support it. We must increase food production, because it is only by better distribution of the surpluses of the more fortunate parts of the world among the peoples of the less fortunate parts of the world that we can have greater justice, and, therefore, greater peace among all peoples.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) have done their best for their party, but I do not think their efforts have been at all convincing. Though they believe, as we do, that the Agriculture Act, 1947, was a useful Measure, passed by this House with the assistance of all parties, and though they believe, as we do, that it should continue as a permanent feature of our national policy, they have sought to collect whatever dirt they could


and throw it about in their speeches this afternoon. However, I want to go back to the Bill itself.
The first few Clauses deal with the grants for water supply schemes, laud drainage and liming, which, I think, have already proved their value. We have been spending about £7 million a year in assisting farmers to carry out these improvement works, and I have no doubt that this public money has been well invested. I looked at the file of "The Times" in the Library before this debate began, in order to check up on the acreage yields before the war—before these grants came into operation—and the present time. A comparison between the 10-year average figures—which, of course, smooth out the differences from one season to another—show that the yield of wheat for the 10 years up to 1939 was 19·3 cwt. per acre, and, for the 10 years up to 1953, 21 cwt. In the case of potatoes, the figures were 6·6 tons per acre and 7·4 tons per acre. Those are the 10 year averages for periods before the war and up to 1953.
There is no doubt that these grants for assisting the not-so-good land have helped to raise the productive capacity of our agriculture. More food is being produced now, and increased food production is still the aim of this Government. I would remind the hon. and learned Member for Brigg that, whatever he says about the state of agriculture, since this Government took office, our agricultural industry has continued to increase its output, and, as far as I can see, judging by the prices of store cattle today store sheep, store pigs, and the demand for fertilizers, home food production will go on increasing through 1954.
This is testimony to the policy of this Government, and these improvement grants, amounting to £7 million a year, have been money well spent. This item of expenditure will fall to be included in the total sum of the subsidies which the Exchequer will be paying to bridge the gap between the prices which British farmers receive in a free competitive market and the income which they require if they are to maintain full production.
This is an instance of bridging that gap to which the Prime Minister referred

in November, when he said that we should have to face a considerable subsidy bill to bridge the gap between the price received in the free competitive market and what was required if food production was to be maintained at a high level. These grants will fall into that general account. Any reasonable charge which the public pay to ensure that, however cheap or dear a free market may become, British agriculture will continue on its course, will prove, as has been proved hitherto, an economical premium for the British public to pay.
At present, there is a surplus of wheat in North America and heavy crops in the Middle East, and it may be argued that it is not worth while continuing these grants for liming and draining the land here, because we shall be able to buy all that we want from abroad. At the moment we can do so, but a year hence—who knows? I am sure that it is an essential part of our nation's defence policy to keep our land in good heart and in high production. This is a well-worth-while premium to be paid.
I would refer to Clauses of the Bill with which the Minister dealt fully and which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers). I am sorry that my hon. Friend is not here now. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) seemed to be trying to stage a cock fight between the Orpington champion and the Wednesbury champion, each scrapping independently of his side. Our old cock was game, but where is the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans)? All I will say is that both parties have trials and tribulations in getting agreement on a sound and enduring agricultural policy.
The Clauses of the Bill deal with the procedure by which the agricultural industry exercises self-discipline, particularly in relation to the appointment of the agricultural land tribunals. Experience of the past five years under the Socialist Government and under our present Conservative Government shows that the procedure works fairly.
I see that there have been some 2,182 cases before the agricultural land tribunals and that about two-thirds of those cases have been dismissed and one-third have been allowed. That does not suggest to me that the tribunals are overweighed by


the Minister's influence. Obviously, they have taken their decisions by exercising their own judgment. The Bill will make it clear that the tribunals are independent of the Minister, because of appointment by the Lord Chancellor not only of the chairmen of the tribunals but of the members selected to represent farmers, on the nomination of the National Farmers' Union and to represent landowners, on the nomination of the County Landowners' Association.
The lists put forward by the N.F.U. and the C.L.A. must have the approval of the Lord Chancellor, and the chairman of a particular tribunal will pick two men, one to represent each interest, to adjudicate in a particular case. That will remove the Minister of Agriculture completely from the scene. He does not say whom the N.F.U. will put up, and he does not even put them on a list after they have been suggested by the N.F.U. The whole task will fall upon the industry and upon the Lord Chancellor.
The matters which these tribunals have to decide are such things as notices to quit—which are the most numerous—charges of bad husbandry, cases of dispossession, or orders requiring a landlord to provide fixed equipment. Those matters are of a practical farming character and are, in my view, ill-suited to consideration by the High Court. On this point I am particularly sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has not stayed to hear answers to the case which he put, in a rather inflammatory way. The great majority of farmers, as represented by the N.F.U. and the C.L.A., have not been able to think of a better arrangement for an appeal court. If they had, surely, over the past five years, they would have put it to the Minister.
I have spoken to both those organisations and I know my own farmers and landowners pretty well. Not one of them has said to me, "We must do away with this system of agricultural land tribunals and have an appeal to High Court." Indeed, all of us in agriculture and in this House should be most grateful to those who serve on the tribunals and who settle the domestic disputes of the industry without invoking the paraphernalia of the law courts. If I were a farmer or landowner in trouble, I would ten times rather be judged by my peers who have practical knowledge of the

matters at issue than be dragged up to London into the High Court. I would know where I stood because I would be talking the same language as the men who were to pass judgment on me.
This little amendment of the Agriculture Act, 1947, is sound. It makes it quite clear that the Minister of Agriculture cannot manipulate the agricultural land tribunals. Its various provisions for assistance grants for land drainage, liming and water supply are all useful. One might say that this is only a little tidying-up Bill and that we want the whole picture of future agricultural policy to be unfolded to us. It is unfolding day by day. Today, we had the details of the seasonal prices for cereals for the 1954 harvest. We do not need to bring Bills before the House of Commons for every aspect of the policy of the Government to be unfolded. It going forward day by day.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: In opening the debate, the Minister laid great stress on the importance of the drainage of agricultural land. I wish to deal with that narrow but very important matter. I do not quarrel with Clause 1 of the Bill as far as it goes, but it does nothing new. It merely continues the powers contained in Section 15 of the Agricultural (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, and is very far short of what is required by British agriculture at the present time.
The Minister will be aware that the present statutory provisions dealing with the drainage of agricultural land are totally inadequate. As I develop my theme I hope to be able to prove this to the satisfaction of the Minister and of the House. I am very disappointed that the Minister has not seen fit to grasp the opportunity given him by this Bill to deal with the problem in a bolder and more imaginative way.
What is the present set-up with regard to agricultural drainage? First of all, the river boards are responsible for certain sections of main rivers—adopted, confirmed and marked on the official map. Secondly, the farmers are responsible for the maintenance of field drains and ditches, and the powers contained in the 1940, Act, and continued in Clause 1 of the present Bill, are designed to help


them. It is only fair to say that this provision has been of immense benefit to agriculture and has brought into cultivation many thousands of acres of agricultural land which would otherwise be derelict today.
The point I wish to stress in this debate is that that is only a small part of the total picture. In my submission there is a very grave problem which is getting worse week by week, and which, somehow or other, is not receiving the attention it should receive from the Ministry. Between the drains and the ditches for which individual farmers are responsible, on the one hand, and the main rivers maintained by the river boards, on the other, there are many hundreds of miles of streams which are too big for a farmer to maintain and which no river board can deal with because they are not scheduled.
For example, the Gwynedd River Board in North-West Wales, which includes the counties of Anglesey, Caernarvonshire and Merionethshire, are responsible for 597 miles of main rivers. It is estimated that between these main rivers and the farm ditches there are no less than 1,300 miles of streams and main ditches in those areas. It is also estimated that in my own constituency of Anglesey there are something like 200 miles of secondary streams between the small ditches and drains for which farmers are responsible and the main rivers. That, I think, will give the House some idea of the importance and the immensity of the problem.
Who is responsible for these streams? They constitute a major problem in British agriculture today, but no one seems ready to assume any sort of responsibility for them. As the Minister knows, large tracts of valuable agricultural land are being neglected at the present time because of flooding, and when farmers and others try to find a solution to the problem they are told that there is no real solution to it. In practice, nothing is being done and the people concerned are told that nothing can be done.
The House will recall that during the war the war agricultural executive committees had effective compulsory powers under Defence Regulations with which

to secure land drainage. But these powers lapsed some years ago, and today the only body with statutory land drainage powers, apart from the river boards, are the county councils, who exercise powers under Section 50 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930.
Can the county councils undertake the work which they are empowered to carry out under this Section? It would be interesting to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary whether he and his right hon. Friend think that the county councils can do the work. The plain truth is that the county councils have not the staffs, the machinery or the money with which to do the job. Confronted with these difficulties, my own county council in Anglesey passed a resolution last July urging the Government to implement the provisions of the Heneage Report. They also decided—this is very important and I ask the Minister to note this point—not to exercise their powers under the 1930 Act, and I understand that other county councils are following suit.
No one can blame these authorities for taking this action. It is not due to any lack of a sense of responsibility. It is simply because they have not the men or the machinery with which to do the work. On 27th February, 1953, the Agricultural Committee of the County Councils' Association passed a resolution calling upon the Minister to take urgent action because agricultural drainage works are deteriorating throughout the country.
The Anglesey branch of the N.F.U. sent a letter to the right hon. Gentleman's Department stating what the county council had decided to do. In due course, the secretary of the branch received a most interesting and significant reply from the Department. The following is an extract from the letter, which is dated 10th November, 1953:
The limitations of the existing general land drainage powers of county councils and their inability to deal effectively with maintenance problems which arise in connection with lesser water courses and farm ditches are part of a much wider issue which has come to the fore in recent years. Existing legislation does not provide any adequate solution. The powers of county councils under Section 35 are so hedged about with safeguards as to make the provision most cumbersome and difficult to operate"—


this is, from the right hon. Gentleman's Department—
with the result that very little use has been made of this Section by the authorities concerned. Another weakness of the Section is that it can only be invoked when obstruction to a watercourse has actually arisen. The powers are purely permissive and the Minister has no authority to intervene if a county council decide, as the Anglesey County Council have done, that it is not possible for them to take any effective action.
The Minister and his Department know full well that there is a serious defect here. The question I am asking the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon is what he now proposes to do about it. He had an opportunity to do something about it in this Bill. When I asked him a Parliamentary Question about a month ago regarding the prospects of implementing the recommendations of the Heneage Report, he said that he was still consulting various organisations and authorities on the matter.
My complaint is that the Minister knows of the existence of this major problem, but does not seem to be doing anything about it. In this Bill he could have formulated an interim measure to deal with the problem pending the introduction of more comprehensive legislation at a later date. Will the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, say what associations they are consulting, and how long they think it will be before it will be possible to tell the House what constructive steps the Government propose to take to deal with the matter?
How much longer does the Minister want before he really makes up his mind what he is going to do about the Heneage Report? I think that is the key to the whole problem. I believe that the Minister hashad ample time in which to give consideration to this matter because the Report was made available to him as far back as 1951. The main recommendation of the Heneage sub-committee is that the responsibility for water courses, including the secondary streams to which I have referred, should lie with the river boards, for drains it should lie with internal drainage boards, and for ditches it should lie, as now, with the owners and occupiers. I suggest that the Minister must either say clearly that the Government are not going to implement the Heneage Report in the foreseeable future, in which case the county councils throughout the country would know where they stood and could

get the men and the machinery to do the job, or he must put the Heneage Report into operation at a very early date.
During the last two years many cases of serious flooding in Anglesey have been brought to my notice, and I know that many acres of valuable agricultural land are not giving their full yield because of the damage caused by these intermediary streams. This problem exists throughout the United Kingdom, and if the Minister is in any doubt about that I can supply him with plenty of illustrations from my own constituency. Because of it, the vital task of food production is being gravely impaired.
There is a serious defect in the law and the provisions of this Bill do nothing to remedy that defect. This matter is far more important and urgent than any other dealt with in the Bill, and I ask the Minister to give it his most serious consideration. I assure him that the farming community throughout the country will read very carefully the answers he gives to the questions I have asked.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. George Lambert: I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey(Mr. C. Hughes) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the argument he has put to you, Sir, about the difficulties of Wales.

Mr. C. Hughes: They are not Welsh difficulties but United Kingdom difficulties.

Mr. Lambert: The people of Devon will be both relieved and grateful to the Minister for prolonging the water, drainage, and lime subsidies, which have been of the utmost benefit to food production in the South-West. I am delighted that the Minister has taken steps to prevent the spread of disease, in Clauses 8, 9 and 10 which deal with swill, beekeeping and the air transport of animals respectively. In my view, possibly the field in which the Ministry can do most good is in the cure and prevention of disease.
I should like for a short while to discuss the diseases of bees. In so doing I make no apology because, even at the height of the war, the Prime Minister realised the importance of beekeeping and ensured that beekeepers had adequate sugar. I am very pleased that steps are to be taken to ensure that imported bees


are free from disease, but is it necessary to import bees at all? The various English strains are acclimatised, whereas those from Holland or Italy have to work here in very different conditions.
I wonder whether it is realised quite how efficient some of our breeders of bees are. In particular, I should like to refer to Brother Adam, of Buck fast Abbey. Two or three years ago I was talking to Mr. Hambledon, the head of the bee department of the United States Department of Agriculture, and he said that Brother Adam was the greatest authority in the world on bees. During 30 or 40 years of beekeeping this man has evolved a strain of bees with four good points. They are more resistant to disease than most; they do not swarm so often; they are good honey collectors; and, what is of great importance, the queens are easily distinguished from the workers—so much so that when money was more flush the Ministry of Agriculture spent, I believe, no less than £50 in buying a queen bee from Brother Adam. At that time the Socialist Government rather thought of taking up beekeeping when they decided to bolster up the groundnut scheme by producing sunflower seeds, but I must not further develop that argument because it will be out of order.
One of the main causes of disease in bees at the present time is imported honey, and probably the most widespread disease here is foul brood. The spores of this disease live in honey and contaminated honey is the cause of the spread of the disease. To me it seems absurd that the Government should spend public money, employ people, and encourage people voluntarily to go about the country to try to stamp out this disease when all the while they allow large quantities of honey, which, in many cases, is contaminated with foul brood, to be imported. There is no better way of spreading the disease than to allow this.
The housewife when she has finished a pot or tin of foreign honey throws it out. It proves a great attraction to any bees in the neighbourhood, they collect any honey left in the container which may be contaminated, and take it back to their hives with often disastrous results. Surely nothing can be more disappointing to people who have done their

utmost to stamp out the disease in a certain locality than to find it present once more, due to this.
Furthermore, when it is found that a beekeeper's bees have foul brood he is compelled to destroy them without recompense. That, surely, is not fair because his bees may not have become diseased through any fault of his; he may have taken the greatest possible care but, even so, they have become contaminated through coming into contact with foreign supplies of honey. I would urge the Minister to look into this question and see whether he can take action to ensure that imported honey is free from the spores of foul brood disease.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. P. Bartley (Chester-le-Street): In the main, I wish to refer to Clause 3, but I should first like to turn to something under Clause 1, dealing with land drainage, which calls for explanation. On several occasions I have raised in the House the subject of the effect of coal mining subsidence damage to agricultural land. I do not intend to go into that subject very deeply tonight, but, as will be appreciated, that damage often affects land drainage on agricultural land, and farmers with land in the areas of coal fields are often faced with heavy expenditure in repairing existing drainage or installing new drainage systems.
All I would ask the Minister is whether the land drainage grants cover such projects, even though there might be, by agreement, some contribution from the National Coal Board towards the cost. Since expenditure arising from mining subsidence is higher and more frequent than in other parts of the country, I also ask that a higher preferential grant should be given for such land drainage work than is given at present.
The main part of my speech relates to Clause 3, which appears to increase the permitted rental for smallholdings. This rental, instead of being limited to £150, is to be increased to £250. I have expressed my concern about smallholdings in a previous debate. Like some of my hon. Friends, while I cannot substantially oppose this Bill, I feel that it has overlooked some problems which ought to be dealt with.
Many Questions have been asked in recent months about smallholdings. The reply given by the Minister to one Ques-


tion revealed that in the last three years the number of schemes approved has been substantially reduced—I think from 90 to 42 schemes the year before last. It appears that the number of smallholdings in some parts of this country is still as it was and that no further progress is being made. I ask the Minister to provide facilities to enable the county authorities to acquire more land to meet the existing demand for smallholdings.
Some months ago, in reply to a Question that I asked, the Minister said that the number of applicants awaiting holdings in County Durham was 186. I then asked what was the average waiting period before such people were given an opportunity to acquire a smallholding, and I was told that seven years was the average waiting period. I was also told at the same time that even in a county like Durham, to satisfy that demand would mean acquiring another 7,000 to 9,000 acres of land. I know that it is not too easy to get land for this purpose, but I suggested that land is going out of production through the effects of coal mining subsidence damage, and that by some expenditure this land could be brought back into use as smallholdings.
The Minister did not agree at that time; I do not know whether he agrees now. I have seen some smallholdings on land which has been affected by coal mining subsidence damage, and I am sure that such land can be brought into use. I ask the Minister to take more effective steps, to urge, encourage or facilitate the bringing into use of sufficient land to meet the demand of these applicants on the waiting list, and to reduce appreciably the period that these people have to wait before they are able to take smallholdings.
There is another respect in which I am not satisfied that all is being done by the Ministry for smallholders. I do not deny that there may be some cases where an increase in rent is justified, but the provisions of the 1947 Act relating to good husbandry and estate management do not seem to have had the same effect among our smallholdings as they have had among the larger farms. Before an increase in rent is permitted, provision should be made to ensure that among smallholdings the rules of good estate management are observed.
I would refer hon. Members to Questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) and myself in this House last year. Probably the Minister has seen some of the correspondence that has appeared in the Northern Press in recent months from tenants of smallholdings, and in one case from a former tenant, complaining about the management of smallholdings. From the replies that my hon. Friend and I received and from the correspondence in the Press it appears that there is much to be desired in smallholdings. More effective supervision, knowledge and understanding are needed to ensure the observance of good estate management on smallholdings. This is a problem which many smallholder tenants will agree needs attention and action in their interests.
I ask the Minister to make additional provisions for these requirements. One is to facilitate, encourage and urge counties to acquire sufficient land to satisfy the demand for smallholdings, and not only in Durham county. From an answer in reply to a Question I gather that in Scotland the waiting list for smallholdings is about 14,000, and there is, therefore, a great need for additional land to be acquired for this purpose. Secondly, before any increase in rent is permitted, steps should be taken to ensure full observance of the rules of good estate management on these smallholdings in the same way as these rules are enforced in respect of the larger farms.

6.0 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: I should have thought that this was a non-political Measure if ever there was one. It seems to me that all it is doing is to place on a more permanent footing provisions which have been agreed by all parties for very many years. I therefore rather regretted that some Members took the opportunity to make what I thought were needless party political speeches.
I want to answer only one point which was made in that sense. It was stated that under this Government agriculture has been declining. That is just not the case. When this Government came into power production in agriculture was some 43 per cent. above the pre-war level. It is now 51 per cent. above that level. That is a material improvement. Although there was a natural anxiety among farmers—


much abated by recent events and explanations—during the period when we were changing from an economy based upon scarcity to one in which scarcity no longer exists, or is much reduced—[An Hon. Member: "What about butter?"] One can always find an individual example to deny a general proposition, but no one can deny that, broadly speaking, conditions of scarcity which prevailed for many years are beginning to give way to conditions in which more goods are available. The consequences of that fact have to be faced by the nation as a whole and it is my conviction, having talked to people in the agricultural industry, that this fact is now beginning to be well understood and appreciated.
The purpose of this Measure is to continue an arrangement whereby part of the cost of drainage, water supply and liming is to be made available in a more permanent form. That is very sensible. It seems to be a small contribution towards greater security, and towards a feeling of greater certainty for the future. It has to be remembered that all these provisions have been continually in existence for 10 years, and some for 12 or more years. They were not the invention of a recent Government. They date from the war years, or before and they have made an enormous difference to the yields of our grassland and arable land. It seems to be sensible and wise to take them out of the realm of wartime or temporary provisions and make them more permanent.
;
These are exactly the kinds of provisions which the agricultural industry should most welcome. Whilst it is necessary to fix prices and make arrangements for marketing—all of which costs the taxpayer money—there can be no part of the price which the taxpayer has to pay, and is willing to pay for a sound and stable agriculture, which is a better investment than these kinds of activities.
Liming has a certain degree of permanency about it. Water supplies and drainage are certainly permanent or semi-permanent improvements. So is electricity, though that is not covered by this Bill. My opinion is that nothing contributes more directly and more permanently, and in a form which is likely to be of greater value to agriculture, than these kinds of incentives towards the improvement of the land itself. No mat-

ter what happens in the future under any Government, they cannot take away from agriculture improvements which are made in water supplies, electricity, and so on.
Turning to the Clauses in the Bill which deal with tribunals, I think that they are an improvement upon the present arrangements. They follow very closely a series of proposals with which I am very familiar, namely, the appeal tribunal and the appeal to the High Court upon a point of law, which have become a long-established and well-recognised feature of our war pensions law. Originally, it was the Minister alone who set up courts of inquiry or appeal tribunals, or who heard the appeals himself. Objection was taken to that, so an arrangement was made whereby lay or semi-expert tribunals—not courts of law—were set up to hear appeals or cases, and these tribunals were appointed by the Lord Chancellor and not by the Minister.
More recently, an arrangement was made whereby an appeal could be made to the High Court on a point of law. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) criticised this appeal to the High Court on a point of law on the ground that this was an appeal from which there was no further appeal. I think that he has misunderstood this matter. The cases will be dealt with—as most people would think best—by the tribunals, but there are points of argument and law which occur over and over again in the tribunals and about which it is desirable, in the interests of all parties, that there should be a ruling.
These rare points are taken to a High Court for a declaration of the law in the matter. They are not appeals on merits, from which there might be further appeals in the Appeal Court or the House of Lords; that passage in the speech of the righthon. Member for Belper was quite irrelevant. They are appeals to a superior authority, such as the High Court, on points of guidance for the future conduct of all the tribunals which are affected. That arrangement has worked very well in the analogous sphere to which I have made reference, and I cannot see why it should not work well in this case. These Clauses are improvements upon the provisions contained in the Agriculture Act of 1947.
Agriculture is our most important fundamental industry, for whatever else we may be in need of there can be nothing quite so fundamental as our food. We cannot exist without it, and whatever may come to us in the way of distress, crisis or war, it is very important that this nation should provide itself with the largest possible amount of home-grown food. I think it is right, therefore, that we should give a sense of permanency to these proposals, and this Bill provides further evidence of the Government's desire to abate anxiety and to make as permanent as possible the various advantages which the farming industry has.
There is one last point to which I want to call attention. It was undoubtedly Parliament's intention that farmers and smallholders should not have to pay the initial charges which fall upon most other citizens when a road is made up, but the fact remains that in certain cases, especially amongst smallholders in or around the edge of towns, there is some dubiety in this matter. Cases have been brought to notice in which what seems to me to be the clear intention of Parliament is being interpreted in an opposite sense in administration.
There are cases where, because the land itself has not been drawn on a particular map or designated for a particular purpose, it is said not to be agricultural land, and yet every sensible person who looks at it would say it is obviously agricultural land that has been used for agricultural or horticultural purposes. It would seem common sense to suggest that the question at issue should be, how has the land been used, what is the land, rather than whether it has been particularly designated in accordance with a particular Act.
I shall not develop this matter beyond telling the Ministers concerned that the reference will be found in Section 48 of the Town and Country Planning Act, and I hope they may consider whether this omnibus, miscellaneous purposes Bill is not a suitable opportunity in which to seek an amendment of that Section which, I think, is clearly being interpreted in a way Parliament did not intend. Finally, I offer my thanks to the Minister and my congratulations to the Government upon this small Measure which does nothing but good to help the agricultural industry.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) began by saying that this was a non-political Bill if ever there was one, and he deplored the unfortunate fact that some hon. Members had dragged party politics into it. He inferred how lamentable that was. Earlier the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) said more or less the same thing. He accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) of collecting dirt and spreading it around, and then, with a great show of virtue, he said he would like to get back to the Bill. Then at one stage we had a speech on bees from the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Lambert) in which he said that he was grateful, that he was delighted; and then he was delighted again at some stage. Having heard the speeches of the three hon. Gentlemen opposite I cannot help thinking they are all "bee" complacent at this moment.
The truth is that this debate is taking place when there is a great deal of uncertainty in the agricultural industry. Personally, I regret that the Minister has not used this opportunity to set at rest many of the doubts that exist in people's minds—and it is no good blinding ourselves to that fact. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Newbury to say production is going -up, and for the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale to say anxiety has abated. Only in "The Times" of yesterday Lieut. Colonel Robert Henriques, an extremely well known writer on agricultural subjects, who writes with a great deal of authority, wrote a letter which he finished by saying:
Our complaint amounts to this: that the Government have consistently and forthrightly declined to state any agricultural policy whatsoever. As a result, when I try to plan for maximum production at minimum costs (on my farm of 1,300 acres) I find that my planning is reduced to sheer gambling and guesswork.
That is the situation that exists today, and here we have a debate on the agricultural industry in which we have not had a word from the Minister to meet that kind of uncertainty that exists.
Only the other day we had a speech by the Secretary of the National Union of Agricultural Workers in which he returned to the fact once again that large


numbers of people were still leaving the land. He said that in 1953 13,000 more agricultural workers had left the land. There will come a point, to which we are very near now, where the decline of the working population in farming will gravely prejudice the economy of the country, and it is no good our blinding ourselves to this fact either. Sooner or later the Government must face this problem. No attempt has been made to face it up to now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Bartley) hit the nail on the head in his remarks about small holdings. We have talked a great deal about amenities on the land. There has been a revolution in the countryside in housing, schools, water supplies, bus services and the other facilities for people living in the rural communities. There has been an enormous change since the end of the war. Yet people still go on leaving the land. The truth is that a lot of people are continuing to live in the rural areas but are changing their occupation from farming to some other industry, and the reason why they are changing their occupation is that they find their new one is a better job with a better return. Until we are prepared as a nation to face this real problem of how to get a better return and better opportunity for the agricultural worker, we shall not arrest that change.
It is not only a matter of wages, but one also of opportunity, and that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street was talking about when he discussed the long waiting lists for small holdings. We must recognise that amenities are not the final answer—and amenities are not the final answer in almost any walk of life—and that opportunities and greater incentives to most people are more important. The cloying climate of a cushioned existence may be all right, but the bracing wind of opportunity very often attracts people much more. I see the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) finds himself in agreement with my remarks. I am glad he agrees.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: In so far as better wages attract men from the countryside into the towns, I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that, if bigger wages must be paid, as I think they ought to be, those who consume the food that is the product of the wages must be pre-

pared to pay a higher price for their food. The hon. Gentleman has to face that fact.

Mr. Donnelly: I should be the last to run away from the point, but the point I am making is that amenities and wages and opportunities have all got to be considered, and that at the moment we are tending to concentrate too much on the amenities and not enough on the wages and the opportunities for the farm working population. Until we are prepared to face up to this the decline in that population will go on with grave effect on the whole of the industry and on the nation as well.
Capital investment in the, agricultural industry in proportion to the national income has been steadily declining over the last few years also. In each year, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 the capital investment in agriculture in proportion to the national income has declined steadily. Unless we are prepared to recognise this danger, too, and to reverse the trend, we are not going to get the food production we need, that is essential for a stable economy in this country. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) spoke earlier on the slump in America and said that the only way we could create a stable economy here was by greater food production in the sterling area and in this country as a part of it. We shall not do that until we invest more capital in agriculture in proportion to the national income.
These two trends of declining manpower and of declining capital investment pro rata with the national income are two very serious trends in the agricultural industry that the Minister cannot afford to ignore if he is to do his job properly. Added to it all is the uncertainty in agriculture about which I have already spoken. The Minister has only himself to thank for that. The Government are very largely to blame, but not only are they themselves not giving any idea of what is happening, but they are being aided and abetted by economists who talk about a return to the situation which existed in the 'twenties, about there being more food, and whether it would not be cheaper to get it from abroad. I think a lot of these economists only see food in Soho restaurants and have no appreciation of the social matters involved. They are long-haired men and


high-heeled women writing with no knowledge and great damage.
The country must understand that the farming community went through a very bad time in the years between the wars and in many ways their position is analogous to that of the mining community. They have the same kind of fear, the same kind of political "thin-skinned ness," as the miners because they have known what it is to be down and out. The farming community, every bit as much as the people in Jarrow, know quite well that although their plight may not have been as well publicised as "The Town That Was Murdered," none the less thousands of villages were murdered in the years between the wars. They do not want to see it happen again. This fear which exists in the industry and in the rural communities has been allowed to grow because of lack of a statement of policy by the Government. It is something which is undoubtedly prejudicing food production.
The Minister today and the Bill we have been discussing have done nothing to meet those doubts. It is a grave charge against the Government that they have allowed this situation to continue for so long and have made no attempt whatever to correct it by a clear statement of policy which, if they had a policy, it would have been the easiest thing in the world to make.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Robert Crouch: We have had a very interesting debate. Speeches from the other side of the House have followed the pattern we have seen so often in the last two years—the pattern of trying to deride and decry the efforts of this Government towards the agricultural industry. Hon. Members opposite are trying to create a great deal of unrest in the industry—an unrest which does not exist. In his speech the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) made no mention at the entire decline in production which occurred during the last two years of the Socialist Administration. He declared that farmers were now dissatisfied, but he failed to mention that the output from each branch of the industry during the last two years has been greater than ever before.
I have looked anxiously at the benches opposite, hoping to see the hon. Member

for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) or the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and hoping to hear them make some complaint about the number of eggs available at the present time. The eggs now available have been produced by our own farmers. I am sorry the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) is not here; in his speech he sought deliberately to mislead the agricultural community and the country as a whole about the present condition of our industry.
I propose to confine my remarks to Clauses 1,2 and 7. Clause 1 is probably the most important Clause in the Bill because it continues the grants for the extension of water supplies through our rural areas. I believe our medium and easily available land is producing pretty well the maximum amount of food which can be obtained from it, but the untapped part of our agricultural land is the light land lying on the hills. Throughout the South of England we have large areas of light land which for centuries have been used for arable production. The time is coming when that land should carry livestock, but it cannot do so unless we have an ample supply of water for the livestock to drink.
I suggest to the Minister that in addition to encouraging local authorities to lay on water supplies throughout the ruralareas, very much greater attention should be directed to encouraging farmers themselves to lay on water supplies. There are a great many cases where one can run for miles before picking up a large consumer of water. If we tap our own springs and wells, which are available on most farms, and we encourage the farmers to lay on their own water supply, I believe that will bring very much quicker results than waiting for years for the local council to come through with the big mains.
I know that if one discusses this with a well skilled local councillor one will often meet the argument, "Supposing a fire should break out on the farm; there would not be enough pressure to put it out." In my opinion, the small number of farm fires which occur do not justify the holding up of water schemes which are necessary if we are to extend the number of our livestock. Perhaps I have said this in the House before, but I believe that in the development of this light


land we have a much greater future for the farming community and a much greater hope of an increase in our food supplies than we have in any other direction,
May I turn to the other part of Clause 1, which deals with getting the surplus water away from the low-lying land. During the last few years I have seen astounding results following the draining of our low-lying land, which is suitable for the production of livestock only after draining. We must see that we get a very much greater output per acre from our own soil than we get at present. We must do that for two reasons: first, because we want more food, and secondly, because experience has taught us that as the output per acre goes up, the cost per unit comes down.
I believe it is our duty as agriculturists to use every means at our disposal to see that we produce our food as cheaply as possible per unit to enable the people to enjoy home-produced food at the cheapest price at which we can produce it. During the short Recess I have been very much encouraged by going round, seeing some of the more advanced of my farmers and seeing how they are increasing their output and reducing the cost. The farms which I have seen are not all large. Indeed, I have seen one or two farms of under 100 acres. The amount of the food they are turning out and the price at which they are turning it out are astounding. If they can do it, others should follow their example—and I believe they will.
May I turn for a moment to Clause 2, which deals with the lime scheme. I shall be very brief on this point. It is certainly the case that since the lime scheme was introduced, as long ago as 1937, the quality of our grass and our crops has improved, and farmers are now fully appreciative of the value of the lime subsidy. In 1937–38, when the scheme was introduced, the amount of lime bought was 762,000 tons—just over three-quarters of a million tons. Last year it was just under 5 million tons—4,936,000 tons.
Lastly, I should like to turn to Clause 7 which deals with the educational grant for sugar beet. In a few years the amount of money for this purpose has gradually increased. In 1941–42 it was, in round

figures, only £9,000, and last year it was £30,000. Some people may wonder for what purpose this money is used. It is used for various purposes. A great deal of it is used for demonstrating to the farmer the advantages of better drilling, better spacing between the rows and in an endeavour to find if we can use seed drills to reduce the labour necessary for singling the beet. A good deal of it is also used for demonstrating harvesting machinery.
I think that it can be said that these demonstrations have met with great success. In 1946, when the first demonstration of sugar beet harvesting machinery was used, it was estimated that ·09 per cent. of the sugar beet grown in this country was lifted by machinery that year. It is estimated that this season, which is now rapidly coming to a close, some 30 per cent. of the beet has been lifted by mechanical means. That is all to the betterment of the worker and of the individual farmer, because where these machines are worked—and I am happy to say that Dorset has not been behind in using sugar beet lifting machines—the beets have been lifted in much better condition. They have been got beside the roads much more quickly in readiness for when the factories can take them, and not as much soil has been carted round by the railways as when the beet was lifted by hand.
Much more work will have to be done before we can say that we have this lifting machinery anywhere near the perfection for which agriculturists look. To enable further development more money is required, and I think that the farmer realises the value of the grant as proposed in this Bill put forward by my right hon. Friend. In addition to drilling and harvesting demonstrations, demonstrations go on and research takes place with regard to the amount of fertiliser used for the cultivation of sugar beet. If one looks back over the years and thinks of the yields which we were getting in the '30s compared with what we are getting today, one realises that a great deal of progress has been made in finding out the accurate amounts and when best to apply fertiliser on land which is to grow sugar beet I believe that the national average in the '30s was eight tons an acre and last year the crop average was over 13 tons. We owe a good deal of this to research workers who have spent so much time


on telling us how to get the best use from the fertilisers we apply.
There is also the question of research into diseases of the sugar beet plant. I know that at the present time that industry is very worried indeed by the spread of yellow virus disease on sugar beet. I was talking to a farmer this weekend about that and he asked me if I would put this point to the Minister—and I do so now—that in the areas where the sugar beet seed is grown a large number of our seed growing firms insist that the stiplings should be sprayed against contracting yellow virus. Others do not worry about it. It was suggested to me that the Minister should make it compulsory for all growers of sugar beet seed to have their crops sprayed in an effort to get rid of this disease which causes so much loss to the farmer and to the country.
I believe that as a result of this Rill and, in particular, of Clauses 1, 2 and 7, we shall see during the next few years a continued increase in our agricultural output, in spite of what hon. Gentlemen opposite may say. On this the first day of our return after the Christmas Recess, and at the beginning of this year which, I believe, the farmers are calling this "Year of Opportunity" it is well that we should start off our debates by introducing a Bill which will be of benefit not only to British agriculture but to the community of this country as a whole.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Robert Richards: I do not find in any quarter of the House any very great enthusiasm for this small Bill. It has been referred to several times today as a rather insignificant Bill compared with some of the Bills which have been introduced with the object of improving the production of agriculture in this country. I think, none the less, that the Bill, although it is small and confined to certain miscellaneous procedure, will as a whole do a considerable amount of good in preserving some of the things which agriculturists enjoy at the present time.
For example, it is very important that we should do everything in this country to encourage the continuation of drainage. That is one of our chief problems. The areas in the country which are still flooded or which are inadequately drained are very considerable indeed. We have only to go about the country at this

time of the year to find it difficult to imagine that some of the land which has never been drained can grow any crop at all. Personally, I warmly welcome the continuation of the grants for drainage because I think that drainage is fundamental and that lack of drainage ruins a great deal of agriculture in this country.
For the same reason, I welcome heartily the reference in the Bill to lime. I have often been struck by the fact that farmers 60 or 80 years ago used to do a great deal more liming than they do at the present time, although they have now considerably better facilities. In my part of the country, in North Wales, farmers used to tramp overnight to neighbouring lime kilns, sometimes coming back the next day having drawn a ton or two or even five tons of lime from a distant kiln. That practice has died down completely. Until quite recently, the practice of liming has declined notoriously in most parts of the country with which I am acquainted. The result is that those lands that used to be limed have practically gone out of cultivation altogether.
There is, however, another side of the picture, and one which farmers are gradually taking into consideration. That is, the tremendous advance which has been made by the agricultural departments of the various colleges in introducing a new system of rotation, and particularly in increasing the amount of grass that is grown in the country.
We in Wales have every reason to be proud that the work which has been done at the university college at Aberystwyth has transformed the characer of agriculture, not only in this country, but abroad as well. It is astounding to notice the changes that one sees in a county like Anglesey, for example, which is well given to grass growing, where we have this new system and these new grasses introduced. Parts of the country have been transformed almost out of recognition.
This is an opportunity for the farmers of our generation. Our ancestors never had anything of this kind. They were excellent cultivators, but they had no opportunity of changing the rotation and changing the character of their land completely. But that is happening every day with good farmers in most parts of the western counties.
I welcome these fundamental provisions in the Bill. I am pleased with the pro-


posal to continue the grants that have been given to persuade farmers to continue with drainage and with the supply of water to their farms, which is, of course, essential. It is important, particularly from the point of view of the health of the community, that the quality of the water that is used on the farms should be of the very best. On so many farms the cattle go to dirty pools. The water that they drink should be as clean as the water that human beings require. We all know that this has its effect upon milk and butter. I have referred only to what I consider to be some of the more important parts of the Bill, and I wish it well.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: The speech of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards), to which we have just listened, was a welcome change from the miserable and cavilling speeches from other Members of the Opposition. It is time that the Opposition awoke to the realities of the present farming situation.
The situation is that when cheaper food is available, with the buyers' market returned, scarcity ending, and rationing coming to an end, the Government have for this season given full indemnity to all farmers, whether their produce is of good quality or poor. The sky is the limit so far as quantity is concerned, but there is full incentive for quality also. In those circumstances, I simply do not understand how it can be said that the Government have no policy for farming or even that they have an inadequate policy.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) quoted a letter from "The Times" of yesterday. I happened to read the whole of that letter. It was written by a gentleman who writes a great deal of fiction; and this occasion was no exception. The fact is that, especially in the last few weeks, now that they have had a chance to let things sink in, farmers realise that they are on a very good wicket for 1954. Many of them are getting a little sick and tired of this constant attempt by the Opposition to make a lot of party politics out of a very little opportunity for criticism.
Here we have a modest but positive attempt to make a further advance in farming. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said that the Bill

was a sop to those who attack Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947. Of course, very few people, on either side of the House, attack Part II. There are more hon. Members on the other side who attack Part I than there are on this side; but I mention that merely in passing.
So far as the right hon. Member for Belper is concerned and those of us who agree that Part II of the 1947 Act should stand, as so many of us agree that it should, there is a difference between Members on the Opposition side and on this side of the House as to the way in which it should be administered, when we come to tread upon the liberties, the livelihood, the rights and the property of the farmers and owners of land who are concerned.
The right hon. Member for Belper is quite content that the county executive committees, to whom all credit is due, should have so little obstacle placed in their path that the safeguards of individual rights are very slender. We on this side disagree with the right hon. Member. We think that the safeguards in the 1947 Act were not quite good enough; and so we have Clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill, which to me are greatly welcome.
The right hon. Member for Belper asked what is meant by the power to award costs. In Clause 5 one sees that the tribunal may award costs when
there are special reasons for doing so.…
Those words are important. They mean that the costs will not necessarily follow the event, as they generally do in an ordinary court of law. It would be an onerous provision to insert in a Bill that the costs should always follow the result of the case. But that has not been done. Presumably, the tribunal will consider very carefully the merits of the original decision and the merits of the objection to that original decision; and, if the tribunal finds that there are no merits one way or another, it will say that there are special reasons for awarding costs. That is how I imagine it will work out.
I think the provision contained in Clause 6 is a good thing, and that, when an agricultural tribunal is in difficulty on a point of law, it should have power to refer the matter to the High Court. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper, who has a powerful imagination, did not allow his imagination to run quite as far as usual on this occasion,


because he said he could not see what points of law might arise. May I make one or two suggestions, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not here. First of all, the Agriculture Act, 1947, and, indeed, all other agricultural legislation is very complicated. Very difficult questions of construction arise; and, if a tribunal finds itself flummoxed on some occasion, it may wish to refer a point of interpretation to the High Court.
Sometimes there is a doubt as to who is the owner of land. An agricultural executive committee, in pursuance of its duties, may possibly serve a notice on somebody, who is not even the owner of the land. There have been disputes before now as to ownership. One could think of other matters on which points of law might arise and which could be referred to the High Court.
In this connection, may I issue a word of warning and suggest a possible need for amendment of Clause 6? The agricultural tribunals have made a point of trying to hear cases as swiftly as possible, because in the practical nature of things there should be as little delay as possible. If points of law are going to be referred to the High Court, there might easily be a delay, unless special provision is made. We are all familiar with the fact that the lists in the High Court are sometimes very full; and, if cases are to take their place in the list and then be put out of the list and postponed from time to time, more injustice may result from this power to refer the matter to the High Court than we would wish to see: and we wish to see justice flowing from it.
But, in general, I welcome these Clauses; and, if it is not out of order, I should like to make the comment that they are so admirable that they might well be followed as a precedent by other Ministers in dealing with similar types of administrative and Ministerial tribunals. I hope this will be regarded as a precedent, although speaking only for myself, I would prefer to see the whole system of administrative tribunals changed and made branches of the High Court. But that is another point.
Clauses 4, 5 and 6 refer also to those cases which are dealt with by the land commissioners under the 1947 Act and under the Agricultural Holdings Act, because they are essentially deciding just

the same sort of matter, so far as individual rights are concerned, as the agricultural land tribunals do at present. Although the land commissioners, as some of us know, do their work as conscientiously as they possibly can, they are in a most difficult position. They have a conflict of duty in their minds. They are actually paid officials of the Ministry with administrative duties in the Ministry to perform, and at the same time they are there to decide as between the citizen and the Minister, though there is the hearing of evidence and the whole thing is very much like a court of law. It is an alternative procedure in some cases to the agricultural land tribunal.
I would have thought that either the same sort of provision, as is contained in Clauses 4, 5 and 6, should be applied to the land commissioners, or—and this would be better still—that jurisdiction should be taken away from the land commissioners altogether and the agricultural tribunals be empowered to hear every kind of case that arises.
In practice, there is a further difficulty which has arisen. I am sorry that all this is a bit legal, but it is most important, if we want to see Part II of the Act working fairly. In Section 72 of the 1947 Act the Minister is empowered to make regulations to delegate to executive committees such functions under the Act or under other Acts as he might think fit. Section 104 of the Act says something which is very obscure, and in my opinion it is being interpreted in the wrong way by the Ministry of Agriculture, and has so been interpreted for a long time. It says this:
No officer or servant of a County Agricultural Executive Committee, or any subcommittee or district committee thereof, shall be appointed…to receive representations relating to laud in the area of the Committee.
In practice it has been found, however, that sub-committees of executive committees are being appointed by the Minister to hear representations about land in their area. Sometime the very sub-committee which has made the decision, about which representations have to be made, has been the committee appointed to hear the representations. In other words, it has been appointed to hear an appeal against its own decision.
The reason why this is being done is because the word "of" has been left


out of Section 104 (5). That is a very small matter to adjust, but it is very important that it should be adjusted. I hope that some steps will be taken in that direction.
I have only one other point on the legal aspect, and that is that I would suggest that in all cases—I believe that this is done in some cases—the agricultural land tribunals and the land commissioners should publish full reasons for their decisions. It is very difficult to see how justice can appear to be done, unless reasons for the decision are given. I was very shocked indeed to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) criticise the conduct of an agricultural lands tribunal in a case when I happened to be present throughout the hearing. I disagreed with its decision and I was not sympathetic to the agricultural executive committee in the case, but nobody could say that the tribunal did otherwise than behave in a most proper and just manner, or so it appeared, apart from the fact that the full reasons for its decision were not, so far as I recollect, given.
One hon. Member opposite missed the point about smallholdings under Clause 3. As I understand it, the point is that experience has shown that on very heavy land even as much as 75 acres will not make an economic smallholding, but on very good land an acreage as small as 50 acres, or even less, will make an economic smallholding. If we are to have more smallholdings, and more really good smallholdings, what we have got to do is to give those concerned the power to obtain better quality land. That is what Clause 3 will make possible, and for that reason I welcome it.
In conclusion, there is one thing I should like to say. I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper is not in the House. I had hoped to say this earlier in my speech, but I was waiting for him to come in. However, he is not here and I must say it now. He is a very fine speaker and he has a very powerful imagination, but he is about as constructive as a khamsin. [Hon. Members: "What?"] If hon. Members do not know what a khamsin is, it is a very hot wind, which raises a lot of dust and lasts fortunately for only about five days.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Slater: After listening to the legal interpretation made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) of the regulations proposed by the Minister in this Bill, I think I had better leave the hon. Gentleman to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) to see if they can agree upon it. The hon. Gentleman has referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) as being what we in the North call an empty drum, and an empty drum makes a lot of noise. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that in my opinion my right hon. Friend has a great knowledge of the agricultural industry in view of the office he held when Labour was in power.
In recent years we have had many discussions about agricultural production. I believe we shall continue to have them, because it is now recognised that this industry, like mining, is a basic one, and has an important part to play in the economy of this country. Every one of us recognises that the 1947 Act provided greater security for this industry than it had ever had before. Whenever I refer to that Act, I am reminded of visiting an agricultural area, a place called Yarm, where I spoke in the market place. An old farmer listened to what I had to say about the policy pursued by Labour when we were in power and, at the conclusion of my speech, a young man asked the farmer if he had any questions he would like to ask the speaker. He replied, "No, lad, I have no questions to ask the speaker. The Labour Government have done everything for us and we are satisfied as far as agriculture is concerned, but Churchill is my man." He was then asked, "But what will happen when Churchill passes on?" The farmer replied, "Well, I shall have to look for another." He was attached, not to the Conservative Party, but to someone he had exalted over a period of years.
Time and time again we have had this question posed: Are we getting what we should be getting from the injection of capital by the Government into the industry? There is doubt about this, and we should have some clarification from the Minister of the conflicting statements regarding the increase in production since


those financial aids were given to the industry, because that policy has been contradictory to the principles of private enterprise before the 1947 Act became operative.
Hon. Members opposite have accused us of being critical. In reply, let me refer them to the statement made in the "Sunday Express" of 19th May, 1935:
The Conservative Members of the House of Commons have done nothing whatever to increase production in the soil since the days they came into power through our exertions.
That is what they had to say prior to 1935 when there was Conservative control and when the farming community was neglected. There is no gainsaying the fact that great apprehension is being felt in rural areas because of the reduction in subsidies, the increases in the cost of living, and what is likely to be the reaction of the agricultural workers and farmers as a result.
This Bill seeks to make provision for what? For the continuance of grants which would otherwise lapse in August, 1954. I do not complain of that, but I do complain about the inconsistency of this Government in not complying with the request of the Opposition for an extension of Section 62 of the Industrial Injuries Act which would have saved thousands of our people from having to apply to the National Assistance Board for relief.
My constituency is adjacent to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and in it there are three rural areas in which there are smallholdings. Every hon. Member knows that the 1947 Act provided for farm workers to become farmers on their own account. County councils and, in certain circumstances, borough councils became responsible for making smallholdings available for letting to people experienced in agriculture. The land for this purpose had to be obtained by agreement, by compulsory purchase or by hiring. The Ministry were prepared to give every assistance, even to making loans to the smallholders up to three-quarters of the working capital required.
On 25th May, 1950, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper, who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, reported to this House that 8,774 acres had been acquired so far in 241 smallholdings provided under the Act. In addi-

tion, schemes for capital improvements to 228 existing smallholdings, or 5,986 acres, had been submitted for approval. I ask the Minister what progress has been made in this field since 1950? Not so long ago we had a debate on smallholdings in which I took part. After that debate a smallholder wrote the following letter to one of our Northern papers:
It is common knowledge that the smaller the holding the greater the skill required to make it pay. Some of them carry overheads higher than farms of 200 and even 300 acres. The trouble is that such farmers are too often denied room to expand.…
Those are agricultural workers who have left other forms of industry for the land and have tried to develop smallholdings. Now it appears that they are being denied the right of expansion. So I ask the Minister what progress has been made in this field since 1950? What new smallholdings have been opened up? Is the Minister satisfied, from the reports of his officers, that smallholders are being given every chance to develop and extend their husbandry? It does not appear to be so from the letter I have quoted.
Another matter on which I would like clarification is in regard to the rental charge which is increased from £150 to £250 per annum. Also, Clause 7 provides for increasing the maximum contributions from sugar beet growers and the British Sugar Corporation towards research and education. We all believe inadequate research, especially if it is a means whereby the farming industry is assisted in sound development. On 20th October, 1952, questions were put down to the Minister in regard to a sugar beet factory. He replied to the Questions and supplementary questions asked of him at that time and he said that there was no capital available to build a factory somewhere in the south. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) asked the Minister to discuss the matter with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture.
I have received a letter, and I expect that the Minister of Agriculture has received a similar letter, from the National Farmers' Union area secretary at Darlington on this subject. He said:
My County Executive Committee has instructed me to write to you, asking for your support in Parliament for the provision of a


new factory in the South of England for processing sugar beet. I have seen Hansard for 20th October, 1952, and realise that the Minister of Food has already turned down requests for this new factory, but no doubt the matter will be raised again in the future.
Farmers in the North Riding and South Durham area would benefit from the proposed new factory because it would relieve pressure on the factories in the North of England which at present have to deal with a proportion of the crop grown in the South. This, in turn, would mean that a larger beet crop can be grown in the North of England, and that the duration of the campaign could be slightly reduced, with a consequent saving in sugar content.
The present demand for an extension of the arable acreage requires efficient cleaning crops in the rotation, such as sugar beet, which, at the same time as providing dollar-saving sugar for our population, will also provide beet pulp which is a most valuable feed for livestock.
I am informed the cost of a new factory in the South might be as high as £2 million and that about 8,000 tons of steel would be used, but the saving to the Government in rail surcharges would, it is estimated, be over £50,000 per annum, and the use of the steel would be an investment when the increased acreage of beet and increased production of sugar began to save dollars. For example, 20,000 acres of sugar beet produce roughly 30,000 tons of raw sugar, at £35 a ton, which equals a saving of over £1 million per annum.
I hope that the Minister will not ignore this information which has been passed on to me and of which I am sure he has received a copy. I hope that he will note that those concerned believe that a great amount of money could be saved in transport charges for bringing the sugar beet from the South to the North. It used to be the policy of the old coal-owners never to allow their wagons to be used by other coal-owners but since nationalisation of the industry the wagons have moved round and have continued to serve the industry as a whole. If he has not already taken steps to do so I think that it is about time that the Minister considered this matter with the Minister of Food.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: It is always very difficulty to assess the prospects of a debate in this House. When I started from home this morning, in the dark, I thought that it was a waste of energy on my part because I should arrive here and find the debate largely confined to the Clauses of the Bill. I

now find that we are able to roam not only over agricultural land but also over nationalisation of coal and legislation dealing with industrial injuries. I shall not take the time of the House in going so widely. I shall endeavour to keep as narrowly as I can to the Bill.
Clause 1 continues grants for drainage and water supply. I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking on this Bill, because I have been known to condemn subsidies. I have had the reputation of being entirely against all subsidies, but that is not quite correct. I still do not agree with many subsidies, but I approve of the grants or subsidies, whichever one calls them, which are provided in Clause 1 of this Bill. I approve particularly of the grant for drainage.
It may be asked why farmers and landowners cannot carry out this process themselves without assistance. The answer is that for nearly 100 years this country has completely neglected agriculture for the sake of other industries and when our forefathers have wanted their land properly drained and cultivated the lack of money available both to farmers and landowners has been such that drains have tended to become useless. Therefore, any assistance for drainage purposes is all to the good in the interest of increased production.
I hope that the Minister will consider one point with regard to water supplies. It has always seemed to me rather unnecessary, if not stupid, that when a claim was made for a grant for water supply no grant was permissible for the installation of a water supply in a cottage or a farmhouse. It may be said that that point can be met under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, but if one is developing a water supply for the land one should be able to supply water to the cottage or farmhouse at the same time and have that supply included for the purposes of grant. I hope the Minister will consider whether something of that kind cannot be done to meet these cases. Obviously, an effort is made to bring water to a water tank in a field as close to the cottage or farmhouse as possible, so the expense of a connection to the cottage or house would be comparatively small.
There has been more discussion on Clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill and Part II of the 1947 Act than upon any other


matter. If I may say so, it has been a discussion which has shown very little realisation of the practical facts of the case. Listening to the debate, one would imagine that prior to the 1947 Act there had been nothing in the way of an appeal to the Courts or that legal decisions or differences on points of fact relating to agricultural holdings had never arisen. I should like to remind the House that the 1923 Act was quite as difficult to interpret as was the 1947 Act and that the way in which decisions were arrived at under the 1923 Act was infinitely better than the method suggested in the 1947 Act.
Now, in this Bill, we are getting a little closer towards a practical way of making decisions in the suggestion that when points of law arise a decision of the court should be obtained. Those of us who have been arbitrators and have had to deal with the 1923 Act have done that. If, during the course of a hearing, either side felt that there were points of law to be decided the arbitrator was asked to state a case. He did so and the decision of the court was final.
I suggest that instead of a decision being given to the High Court which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) has said, might take an extremely long time, it should be given by the county court judge and that his decision should be final. My experience of county court judges is that very often they have a little more practical knowledge of agriculture than have judges in the High Court and, very often, although the matter before them may seem to be entirely a question of law it is to a certain extent tied up with a question of practical agriculture. I suggest, therefore, that reference should be made to the county court judge. It would be infinitely cheaper and would not involve the delay that would arise in the High Court.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) is very sincere in his views, but completely unpractical. He will take up any case if anyone likes to write to him. I have sent one or two cases to him and said, "There is only one man in the House who will take up the case, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington."

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to attack another hon. Member without having given him previous notice?

Mr. Speaker: I think that when an hon. Member takes part in a debate and expresses controversial opinions it is not always necessary to give that hon. Member notice.

Mr. Baldwin: I can assure the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that I put these points to my hon. Friend, who sits by me on the back bench on many occasions. Although we agree on some things on these points we do not agree. It is quite wrong to suggest that fair play has not been given to appellants before the land tribunal. My experience has been that if there is any doubt, in fact sometimes when there is no doubt, the decision has gone to the tenant farmer or to the owner-occupier.
As a farmer I say that the land tribunal ought to be far more severe in future than they have been in the past. There are men on the land today who ought not to be occupiers. They are producing only 25 per cent. of what they should be producing. I have said this before a body of farmers. I knew I had the support of some young farmers in the room for the reason that if we are to make it virtually impossible for a landowner to get possession of a farm when it is being farmed badly the tenant farmer system will die completely. If we do not make the position more fluid, no one, unless there is a sentimental interest attached to a farm, will want to re-let when the farm becomes vacant. That would be a great disservice to the farming community.
We have to remember that few young farmers, unless they have an opportunity of becoming tenant farmers, will be able to continue in the industry. Today, because there are so few farms being let to tenants, the farms are put up for sale with vacant possession and make a ridiculous price. The price is not so bad as it was a few years ago but it is such an unreasonable price that many young farmers expend capital on buying farms which would be better expended on agricultural implements and stock.
I suggest that in future county executive committees, and, if necessary, the land tribunal, should be much more


severe in the line they take with a man if he is not farming his land properly. I say that as a farmer and as one coming of a long line of tenant farmers; and I know that I am voicing the opinion of a great many brother farmers. It may be said that at present we have a world surplus of food, and why should we make a fuss about land not being properly farmed? I am not such an optimist as to think that that surplus of food which is said to exist will find its way to Britain in the next two or three years. The land of this country has to be farmed to the highest extent if we are to survive as a nation. We are completely unbalanced in manpower on the land, having a ratio of something like one in 14 in this country, whereas it is one in six in other countries. We want that balance put right; then we shall be getting on a firm foundation,
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) is not in his place. I agreed with almost all he said until he concluded and could not help bringing politics into the end of his speech

Mr. G. Brown: What is the House of Commons for?

Mr. Baldwin: The hon. Member for Pembroke followed the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who brought politics into the whole of his speech—

Mr. Brown: This is a political assembly.

Mr. Baldwin: —but the hon. Member for Pembroke left politics to the end of his speech.
One point he mentioned was the fact that people are leaving the land. That is perfectly true, not only in this country but all over the world. The attraction of industry both in wages and amenities is such that the wives of farm workers, although the men may wish to stay in the countryside, will not go into the remote districts. That is something we must face up to and bring about an improvement.
What we have to face up to, as have the consumers, is that consumers have been living on cheap food now for about 100 years. They think it their tight to continue to live on cheap food.

The day of cheap food has gone and the sooner the consumers of this country divert a little more of their salaries and wages from beer, tobacco, the cinema, television, etc., and devote it to paying for good honest food produced in this country, the better it will be for the country and the people who consume the food.
We cannot stop men from leaving the land unless we pay good wages, and good wages cannot be paid unless people are prepared to pay a fair price for food. I want to see the farm worker on the top scale of wages. He is the most skilled man in the country today, and I think it is unfair that every time anybody gets a wages increase the agricultural labourer should be kept at the bottom of the ladder. There cannot be cheap food and good wages.
I wish to refer to the question of the amendment of the Seeds Act. I hope that some steps will be taken to bring seed potato sellers into line. Because there has been a scarcity in the last 10 to 15 years what the growers of seed potatoes have been selling to those of us who want to buy seed is shocking. One can find potatoes from the size of a marble to the size of a football all pushed in a bag and called seed potatoes. It is time that seed potato growers began to conform to some sort of standard in the marketing of their products.
I wish to refer to the collection of waste food. I am sorry, in a way, that the Minister has decided to open up the collection of waste food. Here I agree with the right hon. Member for Belper—it is the only thing in his speech with which I did agree—in calling attention to the risk that will be taken if the gate is opened to all and sundry to collect waste food. I know that it is supposed to be processed or sterilised but I also know that that is not done to the extent that it should be. The more the avenues for evading sterilisation or processing are increased the more will the danger of foot-and-mouth disease in this country be increased.
It is fair to say that many of the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in this country, especially lately, have been caused from waste food fed to pigs. In a county adjoining my own there was an outbreak a few months ago, happily kept to a very small area, which broke out


among pigs. I have not the slightest doubt that it was brought into the pig sties by waste food, probably the bones or marrow fat from the bones of chilled meat. I am convinced that foot-and-mouth disease can come to this country in the chilled meat which comes from countries that are riddled with foot-and-mouth disease.
I hope that the Minister, in opening these avenues for increasing the places where these foods can be processed, will see that his veterinary department takes very strict steps to deal with the matter and that there will be some form of supervision which is foolproof. I hope that if anybody is caught feeding unprocessed food the penalty will be so severe as to deter other people who might feel inclined to take that risk.
I would go so far with the right hon. Member for Belper as to say that I do not think this food should not be brought on to farms before it is processed or sterilised. It should be processed in some remote spot so that there is no fear that it will be fed to animals before being processed. Human nature being what it is, there will be many cases where food will be thrown out to pigs without being processed at all. The livestock industry of this country is so valuable, both from the point of view of exports and of food production, that we must close every avenue in order to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease.
I welcome this Bill and I am glad that the Minister has kept its provisions within a narrow compass. I disagree entirely with the right hon. Member for Belper who wanted something big. I consider that the Minister is dealing with changing times in the proper manner and facing up to situations as they arise, for example, the announcement with regard to the 1954 harvest. We hear a lot about a long-term policy, but I have never yet met anyone who can tell me what is a long-term policy. I hope we shall be told to night what such a policy might be.
All we can do now is to give confidence to the farmer. There has been a tremendous change of opinion in the rural districts during the last two or three months. Level headed farmers are becoming upset about the tub thumping which has gone on in the last six months. They are beginning to realise that it is doing the industry no good. The farming

industry must secure the good will of the consumers of this country and they will not succeed in doing that by agitating, unless they have a real grievance. My experience is that farmers have confidence in the future, and I am glad that is so.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I find it difficult to follow the logic of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin)—

Mr. G. Brown: Logic you say!

Mr. Hughes: In the first part of his speech the hon. Member for Leominster said that for over 100 years this country had neglected agriculture for industry. In the latter part of his speech he pooh-poohed those of us who ask for a declaration of a long-term policy.
I wish to examine this Bill from the point of view of the Scottish farmer. I remember that when the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Snadden), who is now the Joint Undersecretary of State for Scotland, was on the Opposition benches he made interesting speeches in which he outlined his long-term policy for agriculture. I remember that he used it to make very interesting speeches about what the Labour Government should do in order to increase the number of cattle on the Scottish hills.

Mr. G. Brown: They were not all that interesting.

Mr. Hughes: I found them very interesting indeed, but unfortunately those speeches have evaporated. When those of us who represent Scottish constituencies examine this Bill to see what it provides for Scotland, we find that none of the suggestions formerly urged by the hon. Member for West Perth are included. We thought when the hon. Member joined the Government that it would provide an opportunity for the development of a constructive policy for Scotland and that, surely, in such a Bill as this we might find something of the spirit of his speeches.
However, there are only two Clauses which refer specifically to Scotland. One is Clause 13 in which we are told that the Corn Returns Act, 1882, shall now apply to Scotland. One of the criticisms which used to be levelled against the Labour Government was that they made the farmer fill up too many forms. Here


we are applying an Act of 1882 to Scotland and making Scottish farmers fill up more forms. What is more, there is a very severe penalty involved. The Minister gives the farmer to understand that in future the person who does not carry out the provisions of the Act will be liable to a fine of up to £20. That is not the sort of imaginative approach which we expected from the Joint Under-secretary. The farmer is to fill up more forms and he is to be subject to a greater penalty.
I should like to have some information about Clause 12. Why is it necessary to introduce a specific Clause for Scotland modifying the powers of the Agricultural Wages Board? This Clause takes away from the Board certain powers and vests them in the Secretary of State for Scotland. What does the Clause mean? Are we getting something that England is not getting? Why is Scotland specifically singled out?
When I see that further powers are to be vested in the Secretary of State for Scotland I am not at all enthusiastic. Could the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland tell us exactly what is implied in this Clause? One of the purposes of the Agricultural Wages Board is to guarantee a minimum wage for the full-time worker. Now the temporary worker is to be excluded and these powers are, for some reason, to be vested in the Secretary of State for Scotland. Has the Minister so little confidence in the Board? Why exactly is the proposal inserted in the Bill? If we need to secure the supply of full-time workers on the land, we also need to see that part-time workers, even though they work for only a short time during harvesting, are given wages which are likely to be attractive and which will prevent exploitation.
How is this to apply to the children? Much against the will of Scottish educationists, the children are brought in to help at the potato harvest. What is likely to be the effect of the Secretary of State taking over powers from the Agricultural Wages Board? These are small matters, but when we think of the wide title of the Bill—the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill—we wonder what the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has been doing to get such meagre results for Scotland.

7.39 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is the only Scottish Member who has taken part in the debate and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture promised that I would give an answer to any Scottish questions which were raised, perhaps I might deal straight away with the two points discussed by the hon. Member. First he mentioned Clause 13, which deals with the extension of the Corn Returns Act of 1882 to Scotland.
This is required because of the method, already published, whereby deficiency payments become payable based upon a United Kingdom average price; the calculation is made between that average price and the standard price in order to arrive at the deficiency payable to the farmer. It has been found that in England and Wales, returns under the Act will supply the necessary information because, through the Act, a cross-section of the country is taken and market prices are returned to the Minister of Agriculture from a very large number of towns in England and Wales.
No such provision exists in Scotland. Our equivalent provision was what was called the old fiar's price whereby the minister's stipend was struck. It was a very haphazard system and would not be at all effective in the disbursal of public money. So that the whole country may be able to supply the necessary United Kingdom average, it has been decided to extend the Corn Returns Act to Scotland. Returns will be made by some 20 towns in Scotland, which will represent about 70 per cent. of the total production of cereals. That is the reason for the insertion of the provision in the Bill.
With regard to Clause 12, the powers conferred upon the Secretary of State by the Clause are not new ones. They have run on since 1941, during the period of the Labour Government, until now. What we are doing in the Bill is to remove all the previous conditions coming under a Defence Regulation and taking power in respect of only one, which is a very exceptional case indeed. It is the Scottish Harvesting Scheme.
In England and Wales the harvest normally starts at a much earlier stage than in Scotland and it also extends over


a very much longer period than in the North. Scotland has a very bad climate compared with the South and our harvest starts later. We also have a very high percentage of broken weather, this sometimes being as high as 30 per cent. The result is a different set-up in Scotland compared with that in England and Wales. In England and Wales there is no guarantee of continuous employment for the harvest volunteer. We find that in order to get the army of volunteers which is necessary for the Scottish harvest we have to guarantee continuous employment whether there is broken weather or not, and that is all in favour of the worker.
In order to do that the Secretary of State, out of his Vote, guarantees the Scottish volunteer harvest worker a full-time wage for the entire week, but the farmer pays the Secretary of State at a rate not less than the minimum wage—in fact, considerably above it—for the actual hours worked. One can imagine that the burden upon some small farmers in respect of a week when perhaps only a few hours have been worked is tremendous.
In a normal year when the weather is fairly decent the scheme more or less supports itself because the farmers are paying the Department, but in a very bad year, such as last year when the weather was extremely bad, there is a charge on public funds. The amount varies. It may run to as much as £20,000 per year, covering the entire volunteer army. It is essential for the Secretary of State to have special powers to make the work attractive to the volunteers.
The Scottish Agricultural Wages Board has been consulted about this, and the Chairman has indicated to the Secretary of State that because of the complications, including hostels and board and lodging, entertainment and other matters, he would rather not have the responsibility of carrying out the scheme.
We have had no trouble at all with the scheme. The farm workers' union is satisfied with it, and so is the National Farmers' Union. The farmer pays the Department at a rate of 3s. per hour per adult male worker, which for a full week represents about 30s. more than the normal minimum laid down for the industry.
In view of that explanation, I hope the hon. Member will feel that the two Clauses have been inserted for some purpose.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: One or two points arise affecting Cornwall and the constituency which I represent. Clause 3 appears to widen the scope of the Minister by increasing the acreage of the smallholding which is to receive grant. Does he consider that the standard of efficiency, equipment, farm buildings, water supplies and so on of the county council's smallholdings in Cornwall is adequate from the point of view of good farming, and will he state how those smallholdings compare with average farms in the country?
I was a little disturbed to read last week that in Cornwall many of the county council's smallholdings appear to be behind the times and partially sub-standard. Reference was also made in a newspaper report of a meeting of the county council's smallholdings committee to the fact that, within a few years'time, the county council will own something like £100,000 worth of smallholdings, and it seems to me that, if the smallholder is paying towards the amortisation of the loan, there should also be something available for the proper equipment of these holdings now and in the years immediately ahead, without looking further into the future, when the county council's smallholdings will be free of debt.
In Clause 7, power is given to increase the levy on sugar beet for research and education in the growing of sugar beet, what the farmers in Cornwall, and I think in the south of England generally, are rather more concerned about at the moment is not the capacity for growing sugar beet, but for dealing with the sugar beet which they themselves grow. This Government seem to be lamentably lacking in foresight in providing sugar beet factories. There is a great need for a sugar beet factory in the south-west, and it seems ridiculous at this time of day for sugar beet grown in Cornwall to be sent hundreds of miles to Peterborough.
There is another Clause in the Bill making further provision for the collection of waste food. I understand that farmers in Cornwall have to pay the full cost of the carriage for sugar beet pulp coming back from the factory to their own farms.
Surely, this Government, said to be doing so much for agriculture—although the farmers themselves seem to be rather uncertain about that—can arrange for a sugar beet factory in the South-West before very long?
I gather from what was said by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), who is not now in his place, that he rather hoped that this would be a non-political debate. I cannot remember any period in the lifetime of the last Parliament when hon. Members opposite, then sitting on these benches, regarded agriculture as something that was non-political. Every Question time when the Minister of Agriculture was in his place, there was a torrent of Questions—very critical, even hypercritical Questions—from the Conservative benches, in addition to a number of Prayers put down on the Order Paper. Let us get away from nonsense of that sort. We have a democratic Parliament, and politics do enter into agriculture, as into everything else.
The question of men leaving the land was raised a short time ago, but, surely, one of the main factors contributing to that situation is the tied cottage? The hon. Member for Leominster said the wives of agricultural workers were reluctant to stay in the country. No wonder they are, if they have to live in isolated farm cottages.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: It is significant that an agriculture Bill should be the first Measure that we discuss in 1954. Clauses 1 and 2, dealing with drainage, water supply and the agricultural lime scheme, are of particular importance to my constituency and I welcome the continuation of those schemes. The importance of drainage, particularly of marginal land and in areas with a high rainfall, is a matter with which we must be very much concerned. As the Minister has said, the answer to a problem of wet land is often simply to drain it.
One of the factors is cost, of course, and I should like the Minister to consider whether, where a farmer does not find it possible to produce the 50 per cent. share of any drainage scheme, it would be possible to give assistance by a drainage loan, which would ultimately be repaid out of the increased production brought

about by the drainage of the land. These schemes should pay for themselves in increased production. It is not always possible for a farmer to lay out a large amount of capital, even after he has received a Government grant to put a scheme into operation.
I should also ask the Minister to see that consideration of all schemes should be much speeded up. There are often instances, particularly in the putting in of water supplies to holdings, where farmers have had to wait for so long before a decision was made whether to approve a scheme that they have gone ahead with the projects themselves, only to find, later, that because they started without the official word to do so they did not get the payments to which they thought they were entitled.
I have had many cases from my own constituency, following on from the previous Administration, in which I have been asked whether the new Minister of Agriculture would review a scheme which had been started without prior permission, and would grant a payment. In every case, I am sorry to say, my constituents have been turned down. I have often wondered whether this was due to loyalty to his predecessor on the part of the new Minister of Agriculture in not wanting to alter a decision which had been made by his Department. Having inspected personally some of these schemes, I should have thought every time that they were entitled to the grant in question.
One further point frequently brought to my notice by farmers wishing to put in water supplies concerns the necessity to have two reports as to the purity of the water, one report from the Ministry of Agriculture and the other from the local authority. If the water in any area has been found to be fit for human consumption I should have thought that the Minister and his Department could accept that analysis and not require further time to be spent on the matter by their own officers.
Clause 2 extends the agricultural lime scheme, which is due to expire on 1st August this year. It was originally introduced for a term of five years, but was extended for two years by Order in 1952. Can we take it that the scheme as it stands at present will now be continued unaltered into 1959, or will the Minister issue Orders yearly modifying the scheme


by altering the basis of the subsidy or making other changes in the present provisions? There have been three Orders since 1951 affecting the agricultural lime scheme. If we are to achieve the steady consumption of 7 million tons of lime per year—it was 500,000 tons in 1936 and is now running at 6 million tons per annum—then we must have an assurance about the operation of this scheme over the next five years, and, if possible, even beyond that date.
It is of particular importance to my constituents to know what the demand is likely to be, because not only are we large consumers of lime on our land, but we also have some of the finest lime works in the country in our area. After all, Settle lime and Spencer lime are world famous names, and it is important that the industry should know what demands are likely to be made upon it over the next few years.
I welcome this Bill, the first one in 1954. It is a very good beginning to the year. Its provisions will assist in increasing food production, and, by continuing these schemes of help to the farmer, this Bill will give fresh confidence in the future of this industry.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: This debate has been a useful one around a Bill that is all bits and pieces. There have been some complaints from the Government benches because we on this side of the House have attempted to talk from the point of view of a long-term policy for the agricultural industry. We are accused of introducing party politics into agriculture. But I remember that when hon. Members opposite were in Opposition they always spoke of the necessity for a long-term policy for agriculture. We used to point out to them that we already had such a policy under the 1947 Act, but they said that that was not enough. Time after time we used to hear from hon. Members opposite that if only they, with their wonderful understanding of the industry, were in power they would provide it with a long-term policy.
However, that is something that the present Government have not done. Surely, however, it is right that the Opposition should call attention to that, and,

when the opportunity arises, that we should also call the attention of the Government to the fact that there is considerable apprehension, doubt and anxiety in the farming industry despite what the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) and the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) have said. They seemed to suggest that all this was a figment of our imagination. I can only ask them where they spend their recesses and what farming papers they read. Do they only read the speeches of Members of the Government and of those whose job it is to answer for and excuse the Government's policy?
I do not propose to follow this line because, frankly, I think we can welcome this little Bill. It certainly does a few essential things that require to be done, and, in the case of water supplies, field drainage and the liming subsidy, it is necessary that we should have legislation which will dispel some of the doubt which may be in the minds of farmers regarding the continuation of these grants. I also welcome the fact that no time limit is proposed in the Bill. For many reasons, it is necessary to have a degree of permanency regarding these grants.
In passing, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House whether the cost of grants under these schemes will be part of the computation in the Price Review. Will it be charged against the cost, and taken into consideration in the Price Review, as part of the payment to farmers of the price which they ought to be getting as a result of their cost of production, and so on?
As regards the degree of permanency of the grants, I think it is absolutely essential, for the sake of the people who are working within this branch of the Ministry of Agriculture, that they should have some idea as to continuation of employment. It is essential for efficiency, and for the recruitment of good staff, that they should have some such idea. Referring to payment for field drainage as a whole, I understood some time ago—I do not know what the position is today and I am asking the question—that not only were grants being made but that the Ministry was, in fact, suffering a loss on its trading account—a loss on the jobs which it was doing for farmers. Can we


be told whether we have balanced the budget on the Ministry's contract work there? I am sorry I did not give the Parliamentary Secretary notice of this point, but I should imagine that he will know. If he does not, he will probably tell us later.
The reference made by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), to these ditching and under-drainage schemes seemed to me to be of considerable importance. After all, it is of very little use the farmer doing something about his mole, tile and ditch draining if the ditches between his farm and the main rivers which come under the various boards have not been cleaned—if they will not permit the drained water to run away. The Heneage Report dealt with this point, but the Report has not yet been implemented and I feel sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will take the opportunity tonight to give use some idea of what the Minister has in mind about this gap, as it now is, in the drainage arrangements of the country.
The Report was presented fairly early in 1951, I think that the Minister ought by now to be in a position to tell us what he proposes to do about this gap which exists between the farms and the main rivers. Uncertainty is undoubtedly caused by the delay. The County Councils' Association is in some difficulty about this and, I gather, have been passing resolutions asking the Minister to do something about it—and they are not likely to do anything themselves until the Minister has take a decision. If the county councils have to do the job with some assistance from the Ministry they should be told. If the recommendations of the Heneage Report are to be adopted and carried out then those most concerned should know as soon as possible, in order that they may get on with this job of controlling the water courses for which no drainage authority is at present responsible.
Ditching appeared to reach the peak in 1948. Can the Minister tell us whether the slight falling off which occurred after that date has stopped and whether we are now doing more ditching than, say, last year and the years before? I think we ought to know these things before parting with this Bill. It certainly

gives us an opportunity of asking these questions and, we hope, getting an answer.
We also welcome the water supply grants. This proposal will be of considerable help to the agricultural industry. It will help the rural areas, and I think that the maximum possible in this connection should be done not only to benefit agricultural land but also to assist farm workers, their wives, and so on, in their habitations.
Last week-end I received a complaint to the effect that quite often when a local authority is considering carrying out a water scheme it approaches local farmers and ascertains how many taps and so on they require, and, then eventually, when the local authority gets to the point of carrying the mains through the village and past the farms quite often its representatives never go near the farmer again to inquire whether he will, in fact, take the water. There is no salesmanship attached to the project at all.
I should have thought that having taken the trouble to make these inquiries, the local authorities would do something about following them up and ensuring that the supply is taken. It might be said that it is the job of the farmer to run round after them, but farmers do not always work that way. Something should be done to induce local authorities which are water authorities to follow up their first approach to the farmer so as to ensure that a water supply is laid on where it is needed and where it can do so much to help to make things a little easier for the farmers, their wives and, certainly, for the farm workers and their wives.
I have not much to say about liming, except that we want to see it increased. I agree with the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) that here is something which is of outstanding value to the farming community. The more liming that we can get done in certain areas the better it will be for agriculture as a whole and for production within the industry. I should like to know whether the Minister proposes to continue what I understood initially was a temporary measure—namely, covering the cost of spreading. Is it his intention to continue with this, and will the grant remain at the present figure of some 70 per cent.? I


am not quite sure if the Minister covered this point. Even if he did, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will refer to it again and tell us whether the cost of spreading will be retained and will remain at some 70 per cent.
On smallholdings, it is true that this Bill merely gives legal consent to what, I gather, is already the administrative practice. In this connection, there have been some very useful points put from both sides of the House about the necessity of maintaining and encouraging smallholdings. Obviously, the loss of people from the land is not wholly a matter of wages. A number of other factors come into this consideration, and I feel that many first-class people are being lost to the land because men of excellent brain and managerial capacity feel that they have no opportunity of promotion.
A big factor in retaining people in an industry is that they should be given opportunities for promotion. In saying this, I want to make it clear that I do not want to see this a country of smallholders. I do not want to see it become a country with a peasant economy, because I do not think it would be a good thing for agriculture. I do not think it would be a good thing for the country as a whole.
I should very much like to see a larger number of smallholdings made available, in order that people who are now debarred as a result of the lack of smallholdings may get their feet on to the agricultural ladder. It may be that previous Governments have failed to do all that they might have done in this connection. All I am doing now is to urge the Minister to think again about this matter, to have a look at the whole thing and to see whether there is not a possibility of meeting some of the points which have been made with regard to the necessity for a greater ladder of promotion for those who are working on the land.
The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) touched, rightly, on the contribution of the sugar beet industry being used for research and education. He talked, rightly, about the increased number of machines which are being used to lift sugar beet. Anybody who has ever done any lifting of sugar beet in the frosty time of the year will realise that

it is an excellent thing to use machines instead of human beings. Any little additional contribution which can be made from this industry will be well spent if it is spent partly on research, general education, the better use of fertilisers, and so on. Although the tonnage per acre grown has gone up considerably there is still some room for improvement.
I wonder whether there is not also someone else who should make a contribution towards this education and research. There is another part of this sugar industry which, I gather, is a very profitable one. I see no reason why, besides the farmer and the Corporation, the sugar refiners should not consider making a contribution towards research and education. I have looked at last year's trading profits of one of these great firms, Tate and Lyle, Limited—a £13 million firm—and I find that it has gone up to an all-time record of £4,605,143, a jump of £684,600 on the previous year. The ordinary dividend is 16per cent. for the year, with a capital increased by a 33⅓ per cent. share bonus. This is equal to 21⅓ per cent. on the old capital, as against 20 per cent. I cannot help thinking that firms which make all that money should be asked by the Ministry to make a contribution towards research and education, which has become a vital part of our fanning economy.

Mr. Drayson: If the hon. Member looked more closely at the accounts of this company he would realise that it spends a considerable amount of money on research, as it does on all matters connected with its products.

Mr. Champion: If it can spend so much money on "Mr. Cube" advertisements before Elections, it might spend a little on a really worth while job of research. I think we might call upon such companies to make some such contribution, and I hope that the Minister will look at that point between now and the Committee stage. It will be something for him to think about in the intervening period.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, although we do not regard this Bill as one that will do all that is necessary for the agricultural industry—indeed, we think it is a small thing—we


believe that it is desirable and, in the circumstances, it is the intention of the Opposition to support it on Second Reading. We shall examine its various Clauses between now and the Committee stage, when we shall put down such Amendments as will appear to us to make it a better Bill, small though it is.

8.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): We have had a fairly long and, I think, interesting debate, with speeches from all parts of the House, and very few aspects of this somewhat diverse Bill have not been touched upon. In meeting such criticism as there has been, I have to speak more for what is not in the Bill than for what is, and I shall deal first with the general criticism, which came from the Opposition, about what was not in the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) was particularly critical that the Government, and my right hon. Friend in particular, had missed this opportunity, as the right hon. Gentleman thought, of saying something that would clarify the position in the farming industry and, as he thought, give further confidence. With one or two notable exceptions, in particular that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards), whose contributions are always much appreciated, in most of the speeches from the other side of the House there was a general preamble accusing the Government of not doing anything particularly positive and complaining that there was a state of great uncertainty in the farming world. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) said something of the sort, too, though I must congratulate him on following the debate with such interest. I should like to make a brief reply on the general point.
The charge that farmers do not know what is happening now and that they are in a great state of uncertainty and ignorance really is not true. The Government have stated quite clearly and categorically what is intended. In our White Paper of last November on the decontrol of food and the marketing of agricultural produce we made perfectly plain the kind of guarantees we intended, and the broad struc-

ture of marketing we proposed; the evolving of these new arrangements has been pursued most urgently and persistently ever since and, of course, it is at present going on as fast as it can. It really does not fit the facts to say that there is this general state of uncertainty today. We have stated, my right hon. Friend has stated, the Prime Minister has stated, that our policy is one of maintaining full production.
We are quite aware that there are surpluses in North America and that world prices are tending downwards, but we still believe that it is good value for our people in this country to maintain full production of food even at some cost to the Exchequer, and we still stick to our policy of raising production to a level of 60 per cent. above pre-war. We have stated that categorically. I am saying these things now because I feel they should be put on the record and that everybody should know clearly that there is no doubt whatever about these things.
This operation we are putting through now is a very big and complex one. It is full of difficulties of all sorts and kinds, and we have to reconcile the interests of producers, distributors and consumers. What we want above everything is a general attitude of good faith and patience and understanding on all sides in order to get through this big and difficult operation to the benefit of producers and consumers. I am quite convinced that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are just as keen as the Government on seeing that production on our farms is fully maintained and continuously increased during this difficult time.
I do not think that there is today that state of uncertainty and disturbance in the minds of our farmers that might have been said to have been there, perhaps, last autumn. I believe that there is now a general clarification of what the Government are trying to do. I am not saying for a minute, nor are any of my hon. Friends, that there is not anxiety. Of course there is anxiety. Many farmers who were farming in pre-war days, particularly in the 1920s, remember what happened when world prices took a downward turn then. The anxiety today is for the same reason—because they see surpluses of food accumulating in North America and a downward trend of world prices.
I suggest that that anxiety is progressively being differentiated from Government policy. Government policy is not responsible for the anxiety; Government policy is trying—and is succeeding—to evolve a structure of price and market guarantees which would stand up in those conditions and which will give the people of this country freedom of choice and freedom to buy what they like, from wherever it may come.
I thank you for your patience, Sir, in allowing me to go that far, for I felt, in answering points concerning what was not in the Bill, that those things needed saying. What we have stated in the way of our general intention clearly defines the general outline of my right hon. Friend's policy. I much appreciated the support which I had from my hon. Friends, particularly the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), in dealing with this point.
To come to the particular criticisms of the Bill, a large part of the comment was directed at Clauses 4 to6, which deal with the amendments to the procedure under Part II of the Agriculture Act. Here again my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon had some very valuable and helpful comments to make. I am not quite sure that I agree with the end of his speech, but I will undertake that we will look at that matter very carefully.
These amendments in Clauses 4 to 6, which will amend the procedure of tribunals, are introduced, as my right hon. Friend said in his speech opening the debate, simply to make a system which is working well work in some respects even a little better. I should like to record my confidence in the system, as did my right hon. Friend. I feel it has worked well. I should like, too, to record my appreciation of the members of the tribunals, who have undoubtedly had a heavy and difficult job to do and who have established for themselves a good reputation with the entire responsible representative farming bodies and, I think, with every thoughtful person in the farming world. They are generally recognised as being fair and efficient bodies who have done this difficult job in a thoroughly just and workmanlike manner.
The suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Belper that my right hon. Friend was making in any way a gesture

or offering a sop to the opponents of Part II of the Act can be completely discounted. In fact, the right hon. Member for Belper himself discounted it as he went along, because he was careful to explain, as he went Clause by Clause through Clauses 4, 5 and 6, that there was no substance in them to give any comfort to the opponents of Part II. There the right hon. Gentleman was quite right, because the changes were not intended for that reason but simply to make a few practical improvements.
I think the right hon. Gentleman had no comment to make about the fact that the Lord Chancellor will now make the appointments of the other members.

Mr. G. Brown: The Lord Chancellor or the Chairman?

Mr. Nugent: The Lord Chancellor will in name be making the appointments, as opposed to my right hon. Friend, who has been making them up to the present. The right hon. Gentleman was, however, more critical on this question of dealing with vexatious or unfair proceedings brought before the tribunals, such as have occurred once or twice when a party has been penalised by the other party continually bringing the case for ward. We feel that the amendment suggested here, of allowing the tribunal to award costs, will effectively deal with this problem. We propose that the tribunal shall have full discretion to decide when costs shall be awarded, and we believe that we can safely trust them to award these costs in a proper manner and that that will be an adequate deterrent to the kind of vexatious or malicious practice which has occurred in the past.
I think that I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, who is particularly concerned about the third provision and the delay involved there, that although, of course, there will be a delay, we hope that it will be limited to some four to six months in an appeal to the High Court. On the other hand, one has to balance against that delay the added public confidence which will be given to this system, and one must take account of the minds of responsible people generally outside the farming world who have not understood, all the considerations of how the tribunals work and who have thought that there was a deficiency in the system if there was no appeal to the High Court.
I believe that the additional time involved will be justified by the greater public confidence. There will be an appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal if the High Court gives permission for such an appeal to be made. I understand that the High Court for this purpose will be the Divisional Court with three judges sitting, and therefore they would need to be persuaded that it was a particularly good case before they would agree to a further appeal.
Taking the general picture of these amendments which we propose, I believe that they will not deter or discourage county agricultural committees in their work, and that in so far as they further increase public confidence in the working of the tribunals and the whole process of Part II, the county committees will welcome them. I should like to pay my tribute to the county agricultural committees. I think that it cannot be said too often that they are public-spirited men and women doing a job voluntarily and giving up their own time and energy to carry out a responsible and sometimes difficult task. They certainly do a very admirable job both for the industry and the community as a whole.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in my contacts in the country I have found that the county committees are well aware of the difficulties, especially where there are pockets of hostile public opinion against them, and I do not think that they are in any way deterred from carrying out a job which they know to be essential. My right hon. Friend restated his confidence in the system. We recognise that it is an essential part of the general structure of guaranteed prices and markets for the produce of our farms, and the nation as a whole naturally wishes to know that a reasonable standard of husbandry is being maintained.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) made a speech—I am sorry to see that he is not in the Chamber—to which some of my hon. Friends have already replied. I think that if he feels these things so keenly, he should study the facts more closely. I was glad to see that he noticed the amendments proposed would give even further safeguards to the interests of fanners who are threatened with dispossession. But in the general picture

it cannot be said too often that the greatest care is taken by the county committees, tribunals and everyone concerned before ever a case is considered for dispossession. It is only when a farmer has shown himself totally unable or unwilling to cultivate the land on his farm that a county committee moves to dispossess him. I am quite certain that the kind of injustice that my hon. Friend thinks takes place is a complete illusion, and I ask him once again to study the facts and inform himself upon them. We shall, of course, have further opportunities of discussing the details of these Clauses in committee.
Turning to Clause 1 on land drainage, I should like to deal shortly with some of the many points raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East asked whether the grant for land drainage was included in the Price Review. The answer is that it does not come directly into it, as it is a capital payment.
The right hon. Member for Belper raised a point about maintenance. When a farmer signs the agreement for a drainage scheme, he gives an undertaking that he will maintain the scheme. He has, therefore, a specific obligation. I am not saying that every scheme is fully maintained. It is an anxiety to know how to improve the system. A general system of supervision would be difficult to operate. No less than 24,000 schemes come forward annually, I doubt also whether the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) would be practical. When schemes come to an average of only about £50 each, it would be impracticable to withhold part of the money and pay it over a period of 10 years. By the time that 10 years had elapsed, there would be inspections of a quarter of a million ditching schemes annually.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is giving me credit for a suggestion I did not make.

Mr. Nugent: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East asked for the figures of drainage schemes over the last few years. In 1949–50 there were over 29,000 and in the previous year over 33,000. They dropped in 1950–51 to 23,000 and in 1951–52 to 21,900. In 1952–53 they came up again to 24,600 and


in 1953–54 to 27,000. The amount involved in 1948–49 was just under £1 million and now, in 1953–54, the annual cost is estimated at nearly £1,500,000. I think we can say, therefore, that although there was some dropping off two or three years ago, the tendency is now for the number of schemes again to increase, and they are coming forward at a satisfactory rate. It is encouraging to hear Members in all parts of the House welcome the continuation of the scheme.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) and others about the Heneage Report. The position is that the consultations have still not been completed. That is to say, entire agreement has not been reached on what course is to be taken. The local authority organisations, the river boards, the Association of Drainage Authorities, the National Farmers' Union and the C.L.A. have been consulted. That covers the whole field of all the bodies who are interested. Work in this connection has, perhaps, been somewhat handicapped in the past year, because the section of the Department principally engaged with this sort of work has been very preoccupied with the repair of the sea defences following the floods of last year. But the whole problem will shortly be coming forward, and my right hon. Friend will be giving it his consideration.
Clause 2, on lime, was also generally welcomed. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) asked whether it was my right hon. Friend's intention to continue this year and in the future with the same schemes as we have at present. The answer is that schemes may be varied from year to year. The Bill gives power for a five years' period and for further periods of five years; but within that, schemes may be brought forward at any time. It is possible that following the Price Review, another scheme will be brought forward appropriate, as we think, for the particular year.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East asked whether it was intended to continue the subsidy on spreading and the special summer subsidy of 70 per cent. The answer in this case is the same: we will wait and see after the Price Review. After the last Price Review, there was a special allocation to the lime subsidy in order to permit an extra

£1,250,000 to be devoted to this purpose. We will have to see after the coming Price Review whether a similar arrangement is appropriate. But the result of last year's arrangements has been an increase, which will be probably a record, of over one million tons of lime, making a total of some six million tons of lime for spreading.
I was asked a number of questions about smallholdings, and I should like to reiterate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Minister that there is no alteration in principle in Clause 3. Subsection (1) does no more than raise the rent limit for holdings between 50 and 75 acres. Holdings under 50 acres have never had a rent limit, and what was fixed was a full, fair rent irrespective of any limit of any kind.
Holdings between 50 and 75 acres have had this limit in the past, obviously with the intention of preventing the rent for any statutory small-holding becoming too high. We have only shifted the maximum from £150 to £250 in order to meet a practical need and to fulfil what has been happening in practice. There is nothing sinister or new in that at all.
I was asked a number of questions about progress with new smallholdings. The position is that in the two years 1949–51 there were 89 acquisitions and in the years 1951–53 there were 56. But there is a rather better record for improvements. As the House will know, the county councils have been preoccupied with the improvement of their existing holdings as required under the 1947 Act, and in the years 1949 to 1951 they made 299 improvement schemes to smallholdings. In the years 1951 to 1953 they raised that figure by 504, so they evidently devoted a good deal of their time to bringing up their existing holdings to the proper standard of equipment, size and so on.
I acknowledge the point which has been made by several hon. Members that the progress in the creation of new smallholdings is going forward slowly, but that is inevitable in the nature of things and something that I am quite sure the hon. Members will recognize as being sensible as a policy. We must never forget in this connection that nearly two-thirds of our holdings, or something like 200,000 holdings in this country, are 50 acres or under. To a very large extent we are


already a country of smallholdings, so that there is a very wide opportunity for any young man who wishes to make a start on a farm to find a small farm on which to make that start.
In forming new smallholdings, which can only be created by buying existing farm land and probably breaking up existing large farms, we must be careful to see that we keep the right balance between the sociological considerations which we all have in mind, such as the first rung on the ladder and so on, and at the same time having in mind the economic need of theindustry to preserve a good number of large holdings which can take full advantage of modern mechanisation. I think the present rate will probably stand up to scrutiny.
I was asked one or two questions about sugar beet on Clause 7. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) dealt comprehensively with the question of research and the problem of virus yellows which is very prevalent today. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sedge field (Mr. Slater) asked me about the prospects for new factories, and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) also questioned me on that subject. I recognise certain passages which I have seen in the document which has been fairly widely circulated. The last word on the new factory was that said by my righthon. Friend before Christmas in answer to a Parliamentary Question, when he announced that he was setting up a group of Departmental officials to examine the project of a new factory for sugar beet. In due course he will receive their report and will then be in a position to consider whether or not he can recommend it.
On Clause 8 I was asked questions on the collection of food waste, particularly by the right hon. Member for Belper and by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), who found themselves in agreement that the central processing policy was of particular value as an insurance against the spread of

disease. That policy of central sterilisation is still, broadly, the policy of the Government, and my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech that for the present the Government are retaining the Defence Regulation which allows the licensing of collection in the urban areas. The use of it will be determined solely by animal health considerations; that is to say, after inspecting the sterilising plant of an individual farmer who wishes to collect in the urban area, the licence will be granted if the plant is satisfactory on animal health considerations.
Those regulations are being retained until my right hon. Friend has a chance to see the Gowers Report on foot-and-mouth disease. That will then give him the opportunity to review the entire picture in order to see whether the existing legislation with regard to the use of waste food, which simply requires the boiling of it, is sufficient as the permanent legislation in this field, or whether it is necessary to go further in order to ensure a greater degree of central sterilisation than would occur otherwise; so that consideration is certainly not lost sight of and is still very much in our minds.
I think that covers the main points put to me, but I should perhaps pay a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Lambert) for his interesting speech on bees, which calls for no reply from me. What is being done will help to preserve the health and profitability of the bees in this country by controlling the import of diseased bees and will be an advantage.
In conclusion, may I commend this small but heterogeneous Bill to the House? It is full of small, valuable measures which will be helpful to the industry in carrying out its job of feeding the nation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—(Queen's recommendation signified.)

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session, it is expedient to authorise any such payments out of moneys provided by Parliament as are mentioned in the table set out below, and the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by or on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in consequence of any such amendments as are referred to in item 3 of that table.
The table above referred to
1. The sums needed as the result of making permanent the power to make grants under section fifteen of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, as amended, in respect of field drainage and other matters.
2. The sums needed as the result of extending to the end of July nineteen hundred and fifty-nine the power to make contributions under section one of the Agriculture Act, 1937, as amended, towards the cost of liming agricultural land, and of enabling that power to be further extended by order for five-year periods.
3. The sums needed as the result of any amendment extending (by reference to the limit of rental value) the meaning of "small holding" in Part IV of the Agriculture Act, 1947, or as the result of any amendment altering in relation to a smallholdings authority's interest or sinking fund charges, the method of calculating the maximum contribution under section fifty-eight of that Act towards any loss incurred by the authority.
4. The expenses incurred by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Secretary of State in administering any provision for pre venting the spread of pests or diseases by bees imported into Great Britain.
5. The expenses incurred by the Secretary of State as the result of extending the Corn Returns Act, 1882, to Scotland, with the substitution of references to the Secretary of State for references to the Board of Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

6. The increase in grants under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, attributable to any provision for the collection and pro cessing by local authorities of kitchen and other waste for use as animal feeding stuffs.
7. The increase in grants under Parts I and II of the Local Government Act, 1948, attributable to any provision adapting the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, to air transport.—[Sir T. Dugdale.]

Mr. G. Brown: There is one small point which I should be glad if somebody can answer. As there is nobody here from the Treasury, perhaps the Minister can help us.
In the table referred to there is no reference to any payment of moneys out of, or into, the Treasury in connection with the changed tribunal procedure. The new procedure, allowing appeals to a court of law, must involve somebody in additional expenditure. As far as I know there is nothing in the Bill about it being automatically recovered and yet it is not covered in this table. Could the Minister tell us why it is not covered and, secondly, could it be made clear that the fact that it is not mentioned in the table will not be held to prevent us from putting down Amendments to the Bill when we get upstairs in Committee?

Sir T. Dugdale: I think that paragraph (13) of the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill covers that matter. It states that:
The other proposals in the Bill will not place any substantial charge on the Exchequer or on local authorities.
I take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about Amendments.

Mr. Brown: It is precisely what is said in the Memorandum that worries me on the first point. The Memorandum says that there will be no substantial increase in the cost, but there is reason to think that there will be some.

Sir T. Dugdale: I understand it is an extension of an existing service.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — LICENSING (SEAMEN'S CANTEENS) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

8.47 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill has a somewhat formidable appearance and it deals with a most controversial subject. Nevertheless, its ambit is really very small indeed and I have some reason to hope that it will prove entirely non-controversial.
Defence Regulation 60AA enables certain Ministers to authorise the sale of intoxicating liquor in canteens provided for workers employed on essential Government work, for dock workers or for seamen and fishermen. During the war that Regulation was fairly freely used but since the end of the war the number of such canteens has steadily decreased. Now there are only 37 left, of which 27 are for seamen. There is no longer any need for special licensing arrangements for civilian workers as such. With the passing of wartime conditions they can and should be dealt with under the general licensing law.
Defence Regulation 60AA is, therefore, no longer required for its main purpose and it is revoked by this Bill. There is, however, a class of workers whose case is special, namely, the merchant seamen. The ordinary licensing law provides for the sale of liquor for consumption on the premises in two ways—sales in public houses and sales in clubs. These are appropriate methods of licensing where there is a relatively stable population, but neither of them is really satisfactory in the case of seamen's canteens. By "seamen's canteens" the Bill does not mean any canteens which may happen to cater for seamen; indeed, perhaps the word "canteens" is not altogether apt, for reasons which I will explain.
A number of voluntary bodies provide welfare establishments for seamen. Their purpose is to secure that seamen are not dependent for their recreation, entertainment and lodging on the ordinary facilities of the port in which they may rind themselves—very often as strangers. The intention is to provide for seamen

facilities where they can relax and amuse themselves in decent surroundings. Many of these establishments are very substantial. They are hostels in many ways like large hotels with sleeping accommodation and, occasionally, married quarters where seamen's wives may join them. Others do not have sleeping accommodation, but are more like social clubs.
The canteens to which this Bill refers are the parts of those establishments in which refreshments are supplied. I do not think I need try to convince the House of the merits of those establishments, nor that they are deserving of special provision, for such provision is necessary to maintain them in full efficiency. They serve an admirable and useful purpose and I think it is obvious that they could not play their part fully or effectively unless they were able to supply liquor.
The supply of liquor in the canteens is quite incidental: their first purpose is to provide food, rest and recreation. But, although the supply of liquor is incidental to that purpose, I think the House will agree that it is quite essential. Apart from any other consideration, if they were not licensed to supply liquor these canteens would fail to attract many of those seamen whom the bodies I have mentioned would particularly wish to come to their establishments.
The canteens have much in common with clubs, but it is not possible to run them as clubs in accordance with the licensing law relating to clubs. For example, let me mention two of the grounds for striking a club off the register in England under Section 144 of the Licensing Act, 1953. In the first place, a club may be struck off the register if persons are habitually admitted without an interval of 48 hours after they have been nominated for membership. But the essence of these canteens is that they should be open without formality and immediately to the seamen who are to use them. That provision would obviously stultify the whole purpose of the canteens. Again, a condition for striking a club off the register is that the supply of liquor is not under the control of the members or a committee of the members.
The constant changes of the clientele—that is the only word I can find as they are neither customers nor members—the constant changes in the seamen coming to these clubs, would make that condition


impossible to fulfil. So the licensing law relating to clubs is not applicable The canteens could not be treated as clubs in England and I am advised that the position in Scotland would be more difficult. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-secretary for State for Scotland could expatiate on that subject. On the other hand, although the canteens cannot be treated as clubs, the general public are not admitted to them. Therefore, it would be quite inappropriate to require them to be licensed as if they were public houses. Accordingly, some special provision is necessary, and that is the purpose of the Bill.
It would not be right simply to make permanent the wartime arrangement by which power to authorise the sale of liquor in canteens was vested in a Minister of the Crown. That would cut right across the whole scheme of our licensing law.

Mr. James H. Hoy: That is what the Bill does.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is not what the Bill does. I hope that I may explain it.
Under the Bill, the licensing authority for the canteens will be the authority that grants licences to public houses, but in one respect, and I quite agree that it is an important respect, the discretion of the licensing authority will be less wide than in the case of public houses.

Mr. Hoy: Mr. Hoy  rose—

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am about to deal with the point. Perhaps I can make my speech in my own way.
In the case of a public house it rests entirely with the licensing authority to decide whether or not a licence is needed at all, as well as such questions as to what kind of liquor may be sold. In the present case the question of how many seamen's canteens there should be and in what ports they should be situated is not a local affair. The Government believe that this particular question of the number and distribution should be settled on a national basis. After all, seamen are not, in the ordinary way part of the local population. They are, so to speak, a floating element in the population

Mr. Ede: Not when they are ashore.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: —who are apt to move from place to place.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the Minister indicating that the number for Wales will be decided in Whitehall?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Gentleman is trying to go faster than I can explain the position. Perhaps when I have explained what the Bill does the Government's intention will be clear to him.

Mr. Hoy: As to who shall grant licences, would the hon. Gentleman explain Clause 2, which says:
The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant a licence under this Act except under the following subsection…"?
If the applicant for the licence has not been disqualified; if the canteen is suitable; and if there is no objection to the site, the licensing authority does not appear to have power to refuse a licence if the Minister has certified the need for the canteen.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member is going very fast. The point I am trying to make is that it will rest with a Minister—I am coming to that—to decide one particular factor which in the case of the ordinary public house rests with the licensing authority, but it is only in that one respect that the licensing authority's discretion is less wide.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Does that apply to Scotland, that a Minister here—

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I cannot make my speech out of order. If I can develop it I think it will be for the convenience of hon. Members.
Moreover, in the case of these canteens the existence of other local facilities is really irrelevant to the question of whether or not a canteen is needed in a particular port: it is irrelevant to the question of some other special provision being made for seamen. We are, therefore, inviting Parliament, by passing this Bill, to say that suitable canteens ought to be licensed and I wish to make that perfectly plain. We propose that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation should be the authority for saying how many canteens there should be and in what ports they should be sited.

Mr. Hoy: So it is a Minister.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is a Minister who decides that one question. This is effected by the Bill requiring that only a canteen which is run or is intended to be run by a body approved by the Minister of Transport and which is certified by him to be needed, shall be licensed.
When once the Minister has given his approval and certificate the licensing authority will not be able to refuse a licence on the ground that the canteen is not needed though that may be done on the other grounds mentioned in Clause 2. In addition, it will be for the licensing authority to decide whether the licence should be for all or for only some classes of liquor, for instance, for beer only or for beer and spirits, and so on.
I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to say that before making any decision about whether a canteen is needed he will seek the advice of the Merchant Navy Welfare Board. I think I may properly say that, in practice, what would happen would be that the Merchant Navy Welfare Board would approach the Minister in the first place. The Board is a body of the highest standing. It consists of representatives of voluntary welfare associations, of all ranks of seamen, of the shipowners and of the Government Departments concerned. The House may rest assured that it will behave in a responsible manner in this matter.
Once licensed, a canteen will remain under the licensing control of the licensing authority. The licence will come up for annual renewal in the ordinary way and the licensing authority will have power to refuse the licence if, for example, in the opinion of the authority the manager is no longer a fit and proper person to hold the licence, and so on, in accordance with the normal law. The licensing authority will have effective control over the people allowed to use the canteen. Under Clause 2 (2) rules must be made which must be approved by the licensing authority. Failure to observe such rules is a ground for refusing to renew the licence under Clause 4 (3).
It is, of course, necessary to make transitional provision to cover the change from the Regulation to the Bill. That is

done by treating those canteens now licensed under the Regulation as if they had been licensed under the Bill at the time when the Bill comes into force.
The permitted hours for sale and consumption in the canteens will be the same as those for ordinary public houses in the district, but there is an exception which I must explain to the House. The exception relates to Sundays in England and Wales and Monmouth shire. Hitherto, the sale of intoxicants has been permitted on Sundays in all the canteens licensed under the Regulation, whether in England, Wales, Scotland, or Monmouthshire. In Scotland, Wales and Monmouthshire the present rule as regard licensing, apart from the Regulation, is that public houses are not allowed to open at all on Sundays: on the other hand, hotels can supply residents on Sundays at any time.

Mr. G. Thomas: Travellers.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Travellers. Clubs can supply liquor for five hours to members and their guests. Most of these canteens are a part of residential hostels, and it might be thought that the hotel rule should apply; but the House will agree that it would be arbitrary and indeed absurd to say that only those who had sleeping accommodation in the hostel should be capable of being supplied with liquor on a Sunday. It seems proper to follow the middle course and to treat these canteens like clubs in this connection and let them supply liquor for five hours.
The Bill prohibits sale for consumption off the premises and it applies all the appropriate provisions of the general licensing law regarding proper conduct, and so on. In particular, the police will have the same right of entry to canteens as they have to public houses, and the provisions about drunkenness and sale to young persons, all apply as under the normal law.
By revoking Defence Regulation 60AA the Bill reduces the number of remaining emergency powers, and I think that that will be welcomed in all parts of the House. It makes permanent provision for what has been found to be permanently useful in the Regulation, and it will, I believe, commend itself as a useful and satisfactory Measure.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: The Joint Under-Secretary of State began with a reference to this being a non-controversial Measure which might be dealt with in a non-controversial spirit. He could hardly expect that when one considers the claims he made during his speech. For example, he asserted that one could not run a club of the type we have in mind for seamen unless intoxicants were provided. As a matter of fact such clubs have been run for seamen.

Mr. Manuel: And are being run.

Mr. Hudson: And they are still being run in this country and in our Dominions where the seamen are well catered for and are pretty well satisfied with the provisions made for them. It is the sort of tall assumption that we cannot do anything effective of a social character today unless drink is provided that continues to make a first-class controversial issue of a matter which might be dealt with un-controversially.
During his speech the Joint Under-secretary said that the club law was not adequate to the arrangements which are being made in connection with the merchant seamen's institutions covered by the Bill. But the club law is not adequate to clubs themselves, and nobody knows that better than the Home Secretary, for when the question of clubs was being discussed in the House some little time ago he indicated that there would have to be further consideration of the provisions, or lack of provisions, under which unsatisfactory clubs can be started. The right in England to pay 5s. to a magistrate's clerk and start a club for the supply of intoxicants to the person who pays the 5s. and to two or three others—that is all that is necessary—makes an impossible state of affairs in the administration of our liquor laws. I admit that to the extent that there is not to be such a right on the part of clubs for seamen the proposals under the Bill are a very great improvement upon the general club law.
I was interested to note that the Minister stated that almost all the institutions which were started during the war for other workers have gone out of existence. I thought he said that only 37 canteens remain in the whole country.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That includes 27 canteens for seamen.

Mr. Hudson: Then 10 canteens remain for other types of workers. The Bill brings to an end Defence Regulation 60AA under which all the canteens were carried on in the past. Under what authority will the remaining canteens be continued? I am sure that the full number of canteens concerned will be more than 10 because of the development of industry and the growth of Government supply organisations. At Harlow and similar places there is the possibility of workers requiring facilities which are not already provided for by Defence Regulation 60AA or the Bill, and that represents a gap in the arrangements being made by the Government. I should like to hear rather more precisely what is to happen to the 10 canteens in particular and to similar canteens which may be allowed to come into existence in future.
My views about the dangers of liquor in the life of this country cannot be expected to sway the House in favour of the entire elimination of drink from the institutions of the people, which I would regard as the most satisfactory thing to happen. The people will have to decide this for themselves. Governments will have to carry out what is the desire of the people in this matter, not the desire of what I might call the few fanatics like myself. I am well aware that that is the position that I have to face, but there are other things which the Government must face in regard to this matter.
One of these is the growing realisation amongst many people in the community, about which hints are constantly being dropped from that Front Bench, of the dangers of the general expenditure on drink and the growth of the drinking habit in the community. The need for the Government to be extremely careful in any step which they may take where drink is concerned remains just as strong today as at any time in our history. Though they may disregard and criticise all the proposals which I have had to make about the matter, the Government and this House are bound to make proposals out of which the most careful supervision will be effected over whatever provision of drink is being carried out.
I will say this for the temperance movement, on behalf of which I have often


tried to speak. I say this quite honestly, because I am not trying to raise a hare that does not exist, but I have not heard of any protest from the temperance movement regarding this matter. It may be that the temperance movement should have been aware of what is involved in this Bill and should have seen what is going on. There is certainly one point which they ought to have seen and which no doubt they will see very quickly now that this debate has taken place. It is that, in Wales—and I shall not say much about this, as I expect some of my hon. Friends will wish to say something about it—the proposal is made that we should open these clubs with drinking facilities for merchant seamen in Cardiff, Newport, Swansea and the other ports of Wales, where the Welsh, by well thought out tradition and careful study of their own problems, have managed to secure, by special legislation granted by this House, the non-provision of drink on Sundays.
Welsh Sunday closing is one of the traditions of that country. Unfortunately for Wales, it has been broken down, very largely by the weakness that exists in the club law, and the right to open a club in Wales and supply drink for five or five and a half hours a day on Sunday makes nugatory the proposals for the general closing of public houses. Nobody complains more about it than the Welsh publicans themselves, and there is complaint about the stupidity of a proposal which makes it possible for a great hole to be made in the law to enable this drinking on Sundays, in spite of Welsh views on the matter.
Here, the Government come forward with another proposal for the opening of clubs in Wales for five hours. I am dealing only with Wales for the moment, and this case is stronger in Wales than it is in Scotland, because Scotland has has weakened on the so-called bona fide traveller, while in Wales they are as keen as ever about this issue. I will leave it to the Welsh Members to show, as I am sure they can show, how unfortunate this proposal is. The whole proposal with regard to Wales should be reconsidered.
With reference to Scotland, I should say that there were enough Scottish Members here to put the case, although from the number of interruptions of the Minister's speech it may be that that case

has been pretty effectively voiced already, and that I can leave it at that. I must say about Scotland that in Glasgow, as in other ports in that country, it is just as necessary to consider the special relationship of Sunday and the limitation that has been placed on Sunday drinking as in Wales. Failure to see that that point is looked after in the arrangements is one of the very grave defects of the Bill.
When I come to the general question of the right of men to have their views considered, I would only say that it would be much easier to accord that right in all cases if the views of men who are anxious for a supply of drink were taken into account when the supply is arranged, instead of, as usual, the desires of those who make profits out of the supply. It is these desires that finally carry the day. If there were any sort of local option, or consideration of the views of those who may use these hostels, if their views could be obtained by the magistrates, there would be a much stronger case for asking everybody, even people like myself, to accord this right and to allow people to enjoy themselves under the law in the way that they desire. That is not being done.
I agree that there is an improvement in the Bill on general club law, in that rules drawn up for the new seamen's clubs are to take into account a large number of points about the proper supply of liquor and that if the supply is not carried out according to those rules the magistrates may withdraw the licence. I admit that that is a great improvement on what goes on with regard to clubs. There is also an improvement in that there is a right of objection—although I am not very clear how far the right goes—accorded to people living in a district where a club of this sort is to be started, to let the police and the magistrate know that they object and the grounds upon which they object. If the Government were honest and sincere about this matter they would try to apply it generally to clubs. If clubs were compelled to submit to this process of public objection such as already exists in regard to licensed premises, club law might have been adequate to deal with this matter and the Bill would not have been necessary.
My final point is to ask why Northern Ireland should be excluded from the Bill.


Some hon. Members here are well able to stale the case for Northern Ireland, but are there no seamen in Belfast, or no ports in Northern Ireland where men of this sort will foregather and claim the same facilities that they expect in England, Wales, or Scotland?
The answer which may be given to me is, "We ourselves provide for this sort of thing in Northern Ireland." If that is so, I want to know what has taken place in connection with the general canteens which were started by other public Departments during the war, some of which I assume still exist in Northern Ireland. What is taking place in connection with those general canteens started during the war? They ought still to come under proper supervision.
In any case, if we are to interfere with the Sunday closing law in Wales to this extent, why should Northern Ireland be exempt? What special rights have they in the matter and what special qualities exist in Northern Ireland to enable them to deal with this matter in a way different from the way adopted in the rest of the United Kingdom?
I am willing to admit at once that in matters of abstemiousness Northern Ireland is further ahead than any other part of the United Kingdom and will probably continue ahead because of a special public opinion which exists there to watch this issue, together with many other issues connected with drink, more carefully than it is watched in the rest of the United Kingdom; but, having made that admission, I hope I may expect the representatives of Northern Ireland to agree with me that if the scheme proposed in the Bill is a good scheme for sailors in every part of the United Kingdom, how can there be a case for exempting Northern Ireland from its provision? At any rate, these are some questions which I should like to hear answered before we can give this Bill carte blanche and send it on its way.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. W. G. Bennett: I welcome this Bill whole-heartedly. Unlike the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), I have visited a few of the sailors' canteens and I have also visited Northern Ireland. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has any experience at all in this matter.
What we are seeking to do is to improve the facilities available for seamen when they arrive at a port. In Glasgow, we have one or two first-class institutes, and I hope that the first time the hon. Member is in the North he will pay them a visit. He will find that when a ship comes into port perhaps 50 of the seamen, like himself, prefer "Coca Cola" and a cup of tea to alcoholic drinks, but others prefer something a little stronger. As a result, instead of all going together, they separate, and perhaps half of them go to the local public houses. We do not want them to go there; we want all these men to be able to stay together.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman ever visits places in London where they sell intoxicating liquors, because there are a number of first-class popular establishments here which sell intoxicating liquors but where it is also possible to get ham and eggs or a cup of tea. Does the hon. Gentleman patronise them? If so, why should seamen not have the same privilege? Why should they not have the same strong mind as the hon. Member?
If the hon. Member can go to one of these places and resist the temptation, surely the seamen who are voyaging the seven seas can claim to have at least as strong a will and also resist it. If they come into a port and have seven days to spend there, they want to have a little enjoyment among themselves. That is all they ask.
In Scotland, we have for a long time been trying to improve the facilities in connection with drinking throughout the country. Public houses there are not such places of social entertainment and amenity as they are in the South. They are purely drinking establishments. We do not want sailors to go into public houses for refreshment ands it there for hours until closing time.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North talked about the people from Wales. We have hundreds of buses coming from Wales with holiday makers to Scotland every summer and he ought to take a trip in one of them to see who breaks the law in Scotland. They take full advantage of our bona fide traveller regulations, and no doubt many of them are good Methodists.
This is a very simple little Measure which is aimed at enlightening, brightening and giving a little amelioration to the lot of the hard-working body of men, who are away from home, when they strike a foreign port. If they were at home they would not be patronising these places. I have a good deal of experience and appreciation of one of our best seamen's institutes, and I would strongly recommend this Measure to the House. It can do nothing but good, and I think we can forget the fears of the hon. Member for Ealing, North.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: If I may say so in reply to the hon. Member for Woodside (Mr. W. G. Bennett), this Bill has nothing at all to do with improving the conditions of canteens or improving drinking facilities or anything of that kind, so that the speech which he has delivered has nothing to do with the Bill before the House. I would not dare to reply on behalf of my hon. Friends who represent Welsh constituencies to the nasty charges which he has made against certain sections of the Welsh people. At least my hon. Friends will have the right of replying on behalf of Wales, and that is more than the Minister for Welsh Affairs has in connection with the licensing of these premises, because if the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport cares to nominate one of these places as licensed premises, the Minister for Welsh Affairs can do nothing about it, even though he holds the office of Minister for Welsh Affairs as well as being the Home Secretary.
All that this Bill does is to revoke Defence Regulation 68A and to put in its place a piece of permanent legislation. There are some important questions which must be raised with regard to new licensing procedure, and I am directing my questions to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Before doing so, I should like to disabuse the mind of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department about the question of there being no great clubs without drinking facilities. Even in my own constituency there is a very large, well-organised and well-run club for merchant seamen. It is a beautiful place in first-class condition, and whether he agrees or disagrees, no provision has been made for drinking at all. It is run without

any provision for drinking either beer or spirits. It is not correct for him to say what he did say when he was opening this debate.
First of all it would appear that if the Minister of Transport nominates anybody who has already provided or will provide licensed facilities for these seamen then the licensing authorities will not have the power to object. There are only three very small conditions attached to that. First, if the man who applies for the licence or is going to manage it has been disqualified, that, of course, would be an objection; but if he has not and, secondly, the premises are convenient and, thirdly, no objection has been raised to their situation, then the licence must be granted because the Minister of Transport has nominated them as licensed premises.
That is what the Bill says, and it is a big departure from the law of Scotland. I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Woodside, who goes to Scotland so frequently complaining about rule from Whitehall, did not take exception to this proposal, which takes from Scottish licensing authorities the control over licensed premises in their own areas.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart)  indicated dissent.

Mr. Hoy: The Joint Under-Secretary shakes his head. Can he tell me that it is different from what I have said?

Mr. W. G. Bennett: Does the hon. Member realise that the authority of the licence is granted by the local authority, in which case in Glasgow it would be the local justices?

Mr. Hoy: Let me repeat what the Bill says. I am asking whether this is correct. In Clause 2:
The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant a licence under this Act except under the following subsection or on one or more of the following grounds"—
which are the three grounds I have already specified. Provided that these three conditions are fulfilled, it appears from my reading of subsection (1) that the licensing authority would have no objection.
Indeed, in this connection I should like further explanation of why subsection (5) says:
In Scotland, a person, other than the procurator fiscal or the chief officer of police,


intending to oppose an application for the grant of a licence under this Act shall, not later than five days before the hearing of the application, give notice in writing of his intention to the applicant and to the licensing court, speciying the ground of his objection.
We need an explanation from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland of what that means. I should like to know on what grounds an objector can object, in view of the beginning of that subsection (1). Does it mean that if paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) apply, the chief officer of police or the procurator has no right to object?
Clause 4 continues this law, because it goes on to say that the renewal of a licence cannot be refused if these same conditions are complied with. It would appear, therefore, that even the renewal of a licence could not be objected to for any causes other than the three specified in Clause 2.
My next question is on Clause 7 (3). It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) said, that not only do the licences appear to be granted on the nomination of the Minister of Transport, but the Minister of Transport also in Clause 7 lays down the hours of opening and grants the right of five hours' opening in these clubs in Scotland on a Sunday. The only right which the magistrates, who are the licensing authority in Scotland, may have is under subsection (4), which gives them the right to modify the hours, but not in any way to reduce them.
The Bill is a much more substantial departure from the licensing rules of Scotland than the hon. Member for Woodside appeared to appreciate. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland may say that these rules were introduced as war-time Regulations. There may have been good reason for allowing them then, but to introduce them in this way, so as to make them permanent legislation, is vastly different from war-time Regulations. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland should at this stage make clear the position in Scotland and either confirm or deny what I have put to him.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: In the course of the debate it has been made perfectly clear that Wales has a special interest in this legislation. I was

very sorry that the hon. Member for Woodside (Mr. W. G. Bennett) allowed his Celtic temperament to carry him to such an excess tonight. As a rule he is a moderate sort of chap. He is not given to abusing other hon. Members in the House, but it would have taken him a long time before finding a more harmful statement than that Welsh Methodists have to go to Scotland for a quiet drink on a Sunday. I will save the hon. Gentleman further trouble by saying that I would be quite willing to give him the opportunity to withdraw that unfortunate remark about Welsh Methodists.

Mr. W. G. Bennett: I am very sorry. It was a slip of the tongue for me to use the word "Methodists." I wanted to-classify Welshmen as a whole. I did not want to pick on the Methodists.

Mr. Thomas: I am fortified now in regarding the hon. Gentleman as having fallen from grace considerably. I will only say this to him: that he has quite mis-interpreted the spirit of the Welsh people if he thinks that this sort of thing is regarded as a joke by those who take their social problems seriously.
Who has demanded this legislation? Who, in Wales, has asked that we should have more clubs and more drinking facilities in the Principality? I am not here to say that any man who wants a drink is not entitled to have one. I am not arguing that case tonight. What I am saying is that the Secretary of State for the HomeDepartment and Minister for Welsh Affairs, who, unfortunately, has had to leave us for a while, purports to speak in this House as one who understands Welsh problems. He purports to ask the Advisory Council for Wales for guidance as to the attitude of the Welsh people upon important issues. I have always believed that it was poppycock to go to an outside committee when we have Welsh Members of Parliament who can advise the Minister.
Nonetheless it is there, but will the Minister tell the Welsh Parliamentary Party that the Advisory Council for Wales has guided him along this channel or not? Can the Under-Secretary say that he has received a single request from the Principality for this legislation, about which,, obviously, the Government feel very keenly? They are giving it a priority over all other legislation that is waiting.


We must deal first with the brewers. This is not the first time in the life of this Parliament that priority has been given to the interests of the brewers by the Government.
There is a leasehold report which interests the Principality of Wales a great deal more than this sort of twaddle. Leasehold reform has to wait until legislation extending drinking facilities in seamen's clubs in the ports of Wales receives first consideration. The Home Secretary made a speech the other day in which he said that we need an uplift of moral spirit in this country. I am quite sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was serious, but does he think that giving this sort of extra facility to young merchant sailors of 18 years of age, away from the restraints of home, will lead to the moral uplift about which he spoke to the nation so recently?
To recapitulate what I said when the Minister was out, the right hon. and learned Gentleman purports to speak for the Principality on occasions and to understand the mood and temper of the Welsh people. I want to know whether he has had advice from the Advisory Council for Wales whom I understand he met yesterday, or from anybody else in the Principality asking for this kind of legislation.
Who will like that? Will the police authorities? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that the Chief Constable of Cardiff or the Watch Committee of Cardiff have said that in the interests of the merchant seamen coming to our city they would like to have more drinking on Sundays; that in the interests of law and order they would like merchant sailors coming to Cardiff to have a little extra to drink over the week-end? Is that the interpretation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the spirit of the Principality of Wales? I had high hopes of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I speak as one who believed he might be a likely pupil to catch on to the temper of Wales, to understand our approach to these problems, but the longer we are here and the more I heat of him, the more disappointed I get.
In this legislation we are concerned with young people who are passing through a difficult phase of their lives. Any hon. Member of the House will know

that adolescence is a difficult and a dangerous period. We know that our crime statistics indicate a rising curve amongst these young people. While hon. Gentlemen opposite may think it funny, I am advancing this argument in all seriousness because I believe it is a gigantic social problem that we have so many of our young people before and in their early 'twenties coming up on a capital charge and pleading that they were under another influence while they committed the offence.
We ought to bear in mind that this legislation will make it more difficult for church missions in the dock areas and for institutions which set out to care for these youngsters and give them an opportunity of social life of good quality when they visit strange ports. Every hon. Member will know that our dockside areas are not the most attractive quarters we can offer, and that usually the normal temptations which await young people are multiplied one hundredfold in certain of those dock areas.
I do not want to get into trouble in saying this because I know that some of the best people in the world live in dock areas, but wherever the merchant ships come in, the vultures are waiting. There are always people ready for the youngsters who leave their ships with money in their pockets. If those youngsters are now to be about the streets after five hours in a drinking club, it is quite likely that as a result of this legislation many a young man may find his way to trouble, and his trouble will be on our conscience.
This has nothing to do with the ordinary freedom of the working man of maturity to go to his club and have his drink. This has nothing to do with the ordinary freedom of the British citizen. This is just a little extra for the brewers and never mind the cost to the youth of this country. I hope that the Government will think again before they seek to give priority to an issue of this sort.
I have asked who likes this provision. Certainly, it is not the police or the church authorities or the welfare authorities or the Y.M.C.A. I am sure that none of these people will have been in touch with the Minister, but if he has had a request from one of these organisations I shall be glad to sit down while he tells the House that he has been urged to introduce this


legislation. I hope, first, that when the reply comes from the Treasury Bench we shall be told why priority is given to this item over ordinary, necessary legislation.
Secondly, I hope that we shall be told who has inspired it and who has asked for it. Has there been an outcry from the Seamen's Union for it? We await a statement from the Government whether any welfare organisation has asked for it. We ought to give our greatest consideration to this question. It is not a party issue at all, but it is a moral issue. It is no good making high falutin' speeches to the nation about calling the people back to high standards with one side of our mouth and saying "Aye" to this kind of legislation with the other side.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. William Keenan: Scottish and Welsh Members have spoken in this debate and it is quite time that a word or two was said for England. We get so many days for Scottish and Welsh affairs in this House that I think it is nearly time that we had a day or two for English affairs.
I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions. I disagree with the contention which has already been made that this Bill provides another kind of club life. I do not think that this is a club facility at all for merchant seamen who may not be in a port for more than a few days. I presume that those for whom these facilities are intended will not be resident long enough in any port to qualify for a kind of club membership.
This Bill will remove a Defence Regulation and it is asserted that that is very desirable. That is all right, but what does the Bill put in its place? The Undersecretary suggested that the Bill would only affect 27 establishments out of the 37 canteens which are still in existence under the Defence Regulation. Presumably the other 10 will have ceased to exist by the time the Bill becomes law.
I ask the Home Secretary whether it is necessary to bring in a Bill like this for the 27 canteens in existence? Is it worth while, or is it, as I suspect, that this is to give the opportunity to create more canteens of this kind which, in effect, would be licensed premises? That appears likely, otherwise there is no point in introducing a Bill of this kind to make a different provision than that

contained in the Regulation, for 27 establishments.
Has there been any representation from such organisations as the Apostleship of the Sea, or others, which cater so well and provide facilities—but not drinking facilities—for sailors? Such facilities in Liverpool are on a par with those of a moderate hotel at reasonable prices. Do those behind this Measure hope that institutions which cater for seamen will be induced, because of competition by licensed houses, to provide these facilities where they do not exist? It would be tragedy if that were the case.
The Home Secretary should tell us whether he has had any representations for this facility from any of those organisations which have so admirably catered for the welfare of merchant seamen over the last century and more. If he has not had such representations, who is responsible? Can we have the opinion of the Home Secretary as to whether, when the Bill becomes law—as the Government seemingly will put it through—it will provide more facilities for merchant seamen to get drink? Are not the facilities now in existence sufficient?
I think that this is a retrograde step. I want to know from the Home Secretary whether it hoped that the 27 canteens now in existence might become 127 or 1,027 and to provide facilities for those who would make profits from legislation of this kind.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I hope we shall hear from the Home Secretary an answer to some of the questions put by my hon. Friends in this debate. As the Rule has been suspended, he need be in no fear as to what will happen to him if he replies in some detail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) represents part of a great seaport and I represent the whole of a greater seaport. I agree with what my hon. Friend said, that where the merchant ships come in the vultures await them. One of the problems which has faced social workers, particularly among seamen, has been securing that there shall be some protection for the seamen from the vultures. During the war Regulation 60AA was devised and very earnestly supported by that traditional friend of the seamen the


late Mr. Ernest Bevin because it did something in that direction.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman told the House last December, when we considered what we were to do with the Regulations which would have expired but for the continuing Motion he moved, that 60AA was among the Regulations he proposed to repeal and to enact in permanent form as far as it was in future necessary. As I understand, this is the Bill which will enable him to carry out that pledge.
I am quite sure that he will realise, from the speeches we have heard tonight, that this Bill will be subjected to very careful scrutiny in Committee. There are some points which have been raised by my hon. Friends that are well worthy of serious consideration, and the great advantage in having a Bill before us is that whereas in the case of an Order we have to take it or leave it we can discuss the various matters raised by this Bill when we reach the Committee stage.
I understand that among the people who support this Measure are to be found the leaders of the National Union of Seamen because they realise the difficulties that have confronted some of their men in the past when they have got into port and there have not been in that port near the place where they reach land appropriate facilities which are under reasonably good management. I hope that among the things which the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation will require will be, for example, that none of the establishments that he proposes to recognise shall be tied to a particular wholesale purveyor of intoxicating liquors.
I do not expect the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has a bit of a past in this matter, to give me an answer on that point tonight. I suggest, however, that in this matter, the whole basis of which is that this is a social service which is carried on at the moment by a number of very patriotic people for the public good, it is desirable that we should make quite sure that the principle of the tied house shall not muscle in on this provision.
As I understand the matter, the 10 establishments that are not seamen's canteens will disappear when this legislation is passed, unless they can qualify

under the ordinary licensing law of the country for continuation in some form or other, either as a licensed house or as a club. I cannot find anything in the Bill which leads me to any other conclusion. Therefore, I judge from the nods of assent that are given opposite that we need not fear that this Bill can be used as subterfuge to create some form of club or licensed house unknown to the ordinary licensing law of the country.
I welcome the fact that we have been assured that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation will consult the Merchant Navy Welfare Board in making these arrangements. I also hope that he will pay consideration to such other institutions as there may be providing for seamen in the area which perhaps may not provide intoxicating liquor but the views of which are entitled to be heard when it is proposed to set up further arrangements for these people.
I must say that I share the views expressed by my hon. Friends about the position of these canteens in Wales. It is true that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) said that the publicans of Wales are very angry about the facilities afforded to clubs. But I gather that their anger does not extend to asking that the clubs should be closed. Their argument is that their own houses should be opened. As one who was Minister for Welsh Affairs, without being dignified by the title, may I say that I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of opinion in Wales would not be in favour of that course being adopted.
I hope, therefore, that this Measure will not be used to reinforce that argument. I sincerely hope that we shall be able so to amend this Bill as to ensure that these institutions, if any exist in Wales, or if any may be brought into existence, shall be under the same law as applies to the licensed houses. Then I am quite certain the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that the passage of the Bill may be very considerably helped.
The case for some such Measure as this is a sound one, speaking on entirely general lines. I am quite prepared to believe that some of the things which might have been necessary in wartime, and particularly at a time when this service was first inaugurated, may no


longer be necessary, and that the whole of the facilities provided by the Bill warrant careful examination during Committee stage.
I welcome the statement by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department that in these institutions the supply of liquor must be regarded as incidental. I hope we may rest assured that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation will consider that the kind of places he will bring within the purview of the Bill will be places where residential and other facilities similar to a club will be the major part of what is provided.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North has pointed out on more than one occasion, there are a number of clubs in this country where the provision of drinking facilities is far more than something incidental. In fact, I think there are many clubs which would not exist were it not for the drinking facilities they provide, and that is the major if not the entire reason for such places being brought into existence. I say that as a supporter of the Working Men's Club and Institute Union and as one who, since 1919, has been president of a club under that union, connected with the British Legion.
As I understand—and I trust that in this I am correctly interpreting what I know is the spirit of the Regulation and what I hope will be the spirit of this Measure—this is an attempt to provide reasonable social enjoyment and lodgings for men who render great service to the nation and who find themselves in ports where they may have to stay for a few days; and where, if these facilities did not exist they might be exposed to the kind of temptation dwelt on by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West.
In advising my hon. Friends to give the Bill a Second Reading tonight, and to bring up their reserves during the Committee stage to ensure that it may be a proper Measure when it leaves us, I want to make it clear that I hope that this will be regarded by the Government, and especially by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, as a Measure which will enable young seamen in particular to escape some of the temptations and difficulties when they are in port away from home but in this country and when they are looking for somewhere to

live, some associates to meet and some relaxation while they are on shore.
I had some experience of the working of the Regulation for a few years and as far as my knowledge goes I feel that it was a necessary provision. I believe that its continuance in permanent form, if properly safeguarded, will be to the advantage of merchant seamen and, as the representative of one in seven of all our seamen, with those qualifications I support the Measure.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I want to put certain questions to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Most of my hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate have dealt with the temperance aspect. I do not want to say anything that would give the impression that I want to curb or limit the freedom of the individual to have a drink if he so desires; but there are other aspects which we must consider most carefully.
The Government have approached the matter in the wrong way. After all, the facilities with which we are dealing arose through a war-time Regulation passed in 1939—Defence Regulation 60AA. If it had not been for a war-time situation when it was necessary to create certain facilities, I do not think that the Government would have introduced in the easy manner they did the type of legislation which this Bill disposes of. But, while the Bill disposes of it, it rather follows the general line of securing the facilities in the same way that the Regulation did.
I am concerned about the change in the normal position in Scotland. I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to inform us, because some of us will be asked about it, what demand there was from Scotland for the Bill framed in this way, In particular, was there a demand from the people who will be using the canteens? We are told by the Undersecretary of State for the Home Department that some of these canteens will provide hostel accommodation more on an hotel basis—I think that was the phrase he used—where there will be facilities for seamen to bring their wives. We must recognise that there are differences between this accommodation and what we normally speak of as hotel accommodation. I should not care to say


whether conditions for the staff will be easier by reason of these added facilities. The matter should be looked at.
I am a member of a local authority which pays very strict attention to the licensing laws. Our licensing benches are composed mainly of local authority representatives, and they are perturbed by the provisions of the Bill. If, for example, the Minister of Transport designates certain canteens as suitable for licences, the Scottish licensing authorities will have no right to say "Nay." Does the Joint Under-Secretary consider that the Scottish licensing authorities have shortcomings and cannot be trusted to deal with this matter? They already deal with every other type of club or hotel licence in their areas. Why cannot they deal with this type of licence?
The proposal will be resented very much in Scotland, particularly by the local authorities. I hope the Joint Under-secretary will tell us to what extent he believes public opinion in Scotland will be prepared to accept a decision by the Minister of Transport which the Bill provides must be accepted willy-nilly by the Scottish Office and the Scottish local authorities and licensing benches.

10.17 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I shall try as quickly as possible to answer the various questions which have been put to me. I shall deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) in the course of my speech.
I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) recommend approval of the Measure. He does so from his long experience, not only as a Parliamentarian, but also as a representative and friend of seamen. He said he represents one in seven of the seamen in Great Britain, and, therefore, he speaks with real knowledge and experience.

Mr. Ede: Most of them, of course, are out of Great Britain.

Mr. Stewart: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has given the House that advice. It is the advice that the Government offer to the House. We say, as the right hon. Gentleman does, that seamen coming to strange ports for a night or

so should have made available to them places which are as pleasant, upright, clean and tidy as it is possible to provide, and that is exactly what we are after.
I recently visited the three so-called canteens in Glasgow, which are the only ones in Scotland. I found them to be most admirable institutions, and I would invite any hon. Member to visit them. The accommodation is exceedingly good. I saw bedrooms for single men, bedrooms for married people, and accommodation for children and babies. The cleanliness was extraordinary. The food was first-class; I had lunch there and had the same food as the men at the next table. I have every confidence in saying to the House that these are institutions which we can be very proud this country possesses.
I think I might remove a few doubts if I explain that what this Bill really does is to take the present 27 so-called canteens—most of them are hostels and canteens—out of the administration of a Defence Regulation and place them, as far as is possible and practicable, under the administration of the general established licensing laws of our country. That is all that it is intended to do. There is no present intention of increasing the number of such canteens, and we have no knowledge that the Welfare Board proposes to ask us to create any more of these canteens. Therefore, in practice, we are concerned only with the present 27 seamen's canteens.

Mr. Keenan: Does not the proposed legislation provide for the extension if necessary of these opportunities?

Mr. Stewart: That is perfectly true, but we have no intention to do so, nor have we any indication from those concerned with seamen's societies or anybody else that any additional canteens are needed anywhere. In practice, what we are concerned with is the continuation of the present 27 canteens under the general licensing laws of our country rather than under a Defence Regulation.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), who gave us as usual a delightful speech, said he wanted the whole of the club law examined. No doubt, there would be an occasion for that, but the hon. Gentleman himself would agree that this is not the occasion


for an examination of the club law. The hon. Gentleman did say, and I was pleased to hear it, that this Bill makes certain improvements, and I am very glad that that is so. He also asked about the 10 industrial canteens, and wanted to know what would happen to them. His right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields gavehim the answer, which is that these 10 canteens will now have to find their legislative basis in the present licensing law of the country. They will form themselves into clubs, and abide by the laws of the land. If they do not do that, they will have to vanish. We are not concerned with them in this Bill. Any such industrial canteens that are formed will be subject to the same general licensing law of the country.
The hon. Gentleman also said that there had been no protest from the temperance movement, and that is my information. I have not had one, and I get them very quickly in my part of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman went on to deal with Sunday licences and referred to the position in Wales and Scotland. He stressed how necessary it was to observe great care about any extension of drinking facilities on Sundays, or, indeed, on any other day. On that, I am in entire agreement with him. I share his feelings on the question of the extension of drinking facilities, and I share his anxieties lest young seamen who go ashore at Glasgow or Liverpool or anywhere else are going to be offered greater chances for drinking on Sundays.
I am completely in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, but these 27 so-called canteens, which are mostly hostels, have been in operation for quite a number of years. In no case has there been any complaint about the way they are run. There has been no police objection anywhere, as far as I know, to the way in which these canteens are run. As the House knows, they are run by voluntary organisations composed of some of the most respected men and women in each locality, and I am quite satisfied that, having made such a good job of it over the past 10 or 15 years, these bodies may be relied upon to continue their supervision and their care for the moral welfare of the people concerned.

Mr. A. Woodburn: My impression is that, under the original Regulations, there was

a provision that only beer was to be sold in these canteens. Does this mean that they are now open to sell whisky and anything else?

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. I have here copies of some of the present authorisations. As he knows, there is an authorisation affecting each of the 27. He will find that some of the canteens are allowed to sell beer and some beer and spirits. We are not altering that at all, either by extending the drinks or reducing them.
On the general point I would ask the hon. Member for Ealing, North to bear with me while I tell him what happens in the two big hostels in Glasgow. I was there, and I discovered, taking the two together, that 85 per cent, of their annual income is from beds, bed and breakfast, canteen receipts—meaning food—and board, and that only about 10 per cent, is from drink. That is an indication that these are not boozing concerns in any sense of the word. I saw men there from our own ships, Jamaica, and from foreign countries, and we all sat down together, black and white, in that room. They were perhaps having adrink with their lunch, and that was all that one saw. With regard to the Sunday clause and its effect on Scotland and Wales, questions have been asked—

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman going to reply for Wales now?

Mr. Stewart: I have been invited by the Government to reply for the Government, which is a perfectly normal procedure. As one Celt to another, I thought I might have had the sympathy of the hon. Gentleman. If any hon. Gentleman had visited any of these places he would have found that Sunday is no different for a seaman from any other day. Ships come in and go out on a Sunday, and seamen are exposed to the same dangers on Sunday as on Saturday. At present, and during all the time of their existence, these 27 institutions have provided drinking facilities on a Sunday. We are not asking for anything different at all. We are only saying that, in this respect, the legislation and the licensing laws that will apply on Sunday shall be the normal licensing laws of England and Scotland as they affect clubs, and that for the rest of the week—we have to compromise on


this—it will be the licensing laws that apply to public houses. If hon. Gentlemen will apply their minds to this matter they will see that that was the only way to work it. If they have any further fears we shall be only too glad to tell them what is intended.
The question, "Who asks for this?" was asked. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that it was asked for by the people who know most about it, such as the seamen's unions, both the men's and officers' sections. I sat next to officials of the seamen's unions in Glasgow and they impressed upon me the importance of getting this Measure through in the interests of their members.
When the hon. Member for Cardiff, West suggests that nobody asks for this in Wales, I reply that that was a bit of exaggeration and imagination. Only last week a new canteen such as this was opened in Cardiff in substitution for an old one. It was opened by the Lord Mayor of Cardiff and the opening was attended by the Mayor of Swansea, both of whom in that way admitted the broad public desire in Cardiff and South Wales for this Measure.

Mr. G. Thomas: I was not there. Forgive me, but it so happens that I was also invited, and that all sorts of people were invited, without any reference to the fact that it was another means of bringing in this sort of thing upon a Sunday.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member is wrong about that. As I have said, we are concerned in the Bill only with the 27 existing canteens. This canteen in Cardiff is in substitution of an old canteen, and it is not an addition. No further drinking facilities will be made immediately available anywhere on any day of the week as a result of this Measure.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North asked why Northern Ireland is excluded. As he probably recollects, the licensing laws are a transferred function; these are matters entirely for the Northern Ireland Parliament and it is improper for us to consider them.

Mr. Manuel: The same as Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: No. Scotland is part of Great Britain.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member says this is a transferred function for Northern Ireland, but he will admit that, while the Bill deals with the United Kingdom, we have ourselves, in Scotland, dealt with all authorisations for licences by our own licensing law.

Mr. Stewart: The Parliament of Northern Ireland was given the sole right of dealing with licensing matters. That is how it is done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodside (Mr. W. G. Bennett) spoke of the value of the Glasgow institutes, and I entirely agree with him. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) asked a number of questions. He spoke of this as a big departure from the law of Scotland. That is not true. I would gladly deal with the matter now, but it would take a little time; but if he likes to raise the matter on the Committee stage I will gladly give him all the information he wants. By and large there is no departure. As I have shown, we have had to use the Scottish licensing laws in a hybrid manner for these special canteens, which during the week we regard as public houses for the purposes of the Bill and which on Sunday we regard as clubs. That being so, we have had to make slight adjustments. There is no departure from the broad basis of the Scottish licensing laws.
I turn to the question affecting the Minister of Transport, which is worrying hon. Members. The only departure of any substance is one whereby it is proposed that the Minister of Transport should be the person who decides whether Glasgow needs three canteens, whether Cardiff needs three or four or whatever it is, whether South Shields needs one, and so on.
Why is that? The House will recollect that that happened during the whole of the war years and in the years since the war. Year after year that Defence Regulation was presented to the House in the six years of the Government of hon. Members opposite and no objection was taken to it. It was thought by hon. Members in all parts of the House, I assume, that the procedure by which the Minister of Transport decided whether these are needed—

Mr. Hoy: It was a war Measure.

Mr. Stewart: It operated also from 1945 to 1950, when hon. Members opposite were in office. It was not merely a war Measure.
Let us see why we propose to continue that well-established Measure. Clearly seamen are in a different situation altogether from that of the people of Glasgow or Leith or Cardiff; they are a constantly moving population. Who knows of the movement of ships and the number of seamen likely to occupy any port at any time better than the Minister of Transport? It is his job to know that; he is the Member of the British Government responsible to Parliament for the welfare of seamen. It is therefore obvious and practical sense that he is the best judge—with his Ministry—of where such a need arises. I invite hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies to realise that we are not talking in any sense of another 100 new canteens. We are concerned with the existing 27. They have been established.
All that we say in the Bill is that arrangements should be made to take them out of the complete control of the Minister and put them in all respects except one under the control of the licensing authorities. The one respect which is excepted is that they are there at all. They have been there for many years. We are only asking that they be continued where they are. If the hon. Member for Leith went to these places in Glasgow, he would be the last to suggest that they should be changed in their location or closed down.

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman is getting away from the point. I made it clear that I was not dealing with management. I was dealing with the proposal to transfer what was a temporary measure into permanent legislation, which gives the right of granting licences to the Minister of Transport, and that there would be no right of objection, not even from the Scottish Office. It was because of that that I asked whether this was not a departure, which was to be deplored, in the form of permanent legislation. If the hon. Gentleman wants to reply to what I said, he might deal with the point which I raised on Clause 2 (5), which also calls for explanation if no change is being made with regard to the granting of licences.

Mr. Stewart: I was coming to that. I wanted to satisfy the hon. Member. In

all respects except this major one, these canteens will come under the general licensing rules of Scotland. In this one matter of their original location we think it right that the Minister of Transport should continue to exercise the function which he now performs.

Mr. Ede: Would the hon. Gentleman point out in the Bill where this Measure is limited to the existing 27 canteens? Reading the First Schedule, I think it would be open for suitable persons to make application to the Minister of Transport. I should hope that where a need was proved to exist in the future, such an application should be made.

Mr. Stewart: That is perfectly true. As I have said, there is nothing to that effect in the Bill. What Isaid was that the Government have no present intention, nor are they aware of any intention on the part of the Welfare Board, to ask in the future for any new canteens. Of course, if in a year or two's time, the Welfare Board was to put up to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation a strong case for a new canteen somewhere, it would be examined—certainly. I am only pointing out that as far as we can look ahead, and with the advice of the seamen's societies, there is no prospect of that happening.

Mr. Manuel: The Minister will be able to grant licences.

Mr. Stewart: There is no change in that. For many years the canteens have been to that extent initially placed in that position by the Minister of Transport. We are proposing no change whatsoever in that respect.

Mr. Manuel: Seemingly, we are at cross-purposes. The hon. Gentleman says that there is no change. If there is any addition to the 27 canteens, the issue of licences virtually rests in the hands of the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. That would be a big change in Scottish licensing procedure.

Mr. Stewart: I do not know the grounds for the hon. Member's argument. That is the system that has been in operation throughout the war and in all the years since, and a system which the hon. Member and his hon. Friends, year after year, supported. There is no change in that at all. We are going on with regard to this exactly as we were doing.

Mr. J. Hudson: The hon. Gentleman has given the House an undertaking that there will be no extension of the 27. Do I understand that aright? I believe that that impression will go out from what he has said and I think that a number of my hon. Friends have that impression. In Clause 2 (4) there is provision made for the construction and conversion of premises—not the premises now in existence—for seamen's canteens, and it says that a provisional licence may be issued for such places erected and reconstructed, and that after a period the provisional licence may become a permanent one. That is only one illustration which makes me feel that we are not dealing with 27 licensed premises but with a potential development that may be very serious indeed. It is that I want the hon. Gentleman to deal with.

Mr. Stewart: I do not know whether I can be any more explicit, but let me try once again. First, the Government have no present intention of extending the number of these canteens. Secondly, the advice we received from the Welfare Board, which is the body that knows about this and advises the Government, is that it foresees no need for additional canteens. But that is not an undertaking that there will not be any more; that is giving the hon. Gentleman, honestly and completely, the view that we take now. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, however, if an overwhelming case were to be made out for an additional canteen at some port, that would have to be considered sympathetically. That is as far as I can go.

Mr. Woodburn: May I put a point to the hon. Gentleman? Several times he has said that because this existed during the war and has not been changed since the Defence Regulations were made, that is a reason for it continuing. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the war it was with the greatest difficulty that the Government were prepared to accept this in regard to Scotland, and it was accepted at that time purely because of the war conditions, when ships were coming in and going out on Sunday, battleships were coming in, and all sorts of people were arriving at the ports? It seems to me that the Minister is not making a case for this Bill as part of permanent legislation, but is merely saying that because it occurred during the war it ought to go

on. I think that if the Minister wants to justify this Bill he must make the case on its merits. There were lots of things done during the war that nobody wants to perpetuate during peace-time.

Mr. Stewart: The justification for the continuance of the three canteens in Glasgow would be provided to the right hon. Gentleman if he went there or consulted his colleagues of the Seamen's Union. Then he asked me how they are to be administered. I say they are to be administered in everything except in relation to their location by the normal licensing procedure machinery of Scotland.
The hon. Member for Leith asked me about Clauses 5 and 7—

Mr. Hoy: Subsection 5 of Clause 2.

Mr. Stewart: The answer is that Clause 2 (5) merely applies the procedure of the existing Scottish licensing law for objection to applications for public house or hotel licences. That is all it does. On the next point, at present the Procurator Fiscal and the police do not have to give notice, but other objectors do. The next point is that objections may be taken on any of the grounds, (a), (b) and (c) in Clause 2 (1).
I think I have dealt with the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), but I assure him that no extra facility for drinking is here intended. There will be no additional drinking facilities on Sundays; as for the flight of imagination about the young man after five hours drinking, let the hon. Gentleman go to the three canteens in Cardiff and discover what is happening. That is what is being done now in Cardiff. The hon. Gentleman will find that the record of behaviour has been good, and we have every reason to believe it will continue to be good.

Mr. G. Thomas: Why not ask the Chief Constable?

Mr. Stewart: No, let the hon. Member go to the Seamen's Union or to the local seamen's societies, and that will be the answer.
I think I have already answered the point made by the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan), who asked if this Bill would not be an opportunity to provide many more canteens.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields wanted an assurance that there would be no question of these canteens being tied houses. None of the 27 canteens now is so tied, but if the right hon. Gentleman feels very anxious about it, and would like to put an Amendment down in Committee to ensure that they will never become tied, we feel so certain about the matter that we would accept such an Amendment. I think I have dealt with the 10 industrial canteens, and with all the other points. I hope, therefore, that the House, having discussed this matter fully, and having listened to the wise advice from my hon. Friend, from the right hon. Gentleman from myself and others will now agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Sir C. Drewe.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PRIVILEGES

Mr. McCorquodale discharged from the Committee of Privileges and Mr. Assheton added.—[Sir C. Drewe.]

Orders of the Day — ROYAL DOCKYARDS (DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES)

10.48 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir Cedric Drewe.]

Mr. Michael Foot: I wish to raise a subject concerned with the direction of the Royal Dockyards, and my complaint is that the Admiralty have taken action in dealing with certain individuals which offends against the spirit of British justice. It may be that the number of persons concerned is not very large, but I believe that the issue of principle concerned is important. Before I turn to deal with the case I am concerned about, and to put the Civil Lord in a good mind and accommodating temper, although I am sure that that is his normal state and I would like to assist it, I want to start by paying some compliments to his Department and to the Admiralty.
There have been great improvements in the administration and general conduct of the Royal Dockyards during the past seven years. I think most of those are due to representations made by the trade unions, but if one considers the progress made in that period it has been considerable. What I shall be asking later is that the Admiralty shall take another step forward in trying to improve the conditions of employment in the dockyards. I remember that in 1945, when I first spoke in the House about dockyard matters, I referred to the workmen's handbook which existed then, and which may fairly have been described as a charter of industrial feudalism. In the past five or six years there have been many steps taken to remove that old feudal atmosphere in the dockyards, and much improvement has been made in the establishment scheme and in other respects. So I hope that the Admiralty will view with some understanding and sympathy the case I am putting.
I hope the Admiralty will also consider very seriously another question which has been raised with them by the trade unions in the last few months. The Admiralty have apparently decided to abolish the system of staggered holidays and to have them taken during the one period. I hope the Civil Lord will still be prepared to re-consider this matter for this year, but, if not for this year, I hope he will take into account the representations of the trade unions for the next year.
It has long been the practice that anyone convicted in a court case was liable to instant dismissal. That was the procedure laid down in the old workmen's handbook, and although that manual has been altered and improved in recent years, it is still the fact that anyone convicted in a court case is liable to instant dismissal. Since 1945 I have raised with the Admiralty some 30 or 40 cases, and some years ago, in some of the cases I took up where men had been discharged, the Admiralty relented and took them back. But, in the last few years, they have been growing more severe and rigid in the enforcement of this rule. Obviously there must be cases in which that is the right course, and obviously one cannot lay down a hard and fast rule.
Each case has got to be judged on its merits, but my charge in this respect is


that is what the Admiralty are not doing at present. In a serious case of embezzlement, obviously the Admiralty have good grounds for discharging a person convicted of stealing Admiralty property. In that case the Admiralty may be acting in exactly the same way as any other employer. Clearly also in the case of sexual offences, which is the type of offence concerned in the three examples I shall give, the Admiralty have a duty to protect their other employees, and they have to consider the cases very carefully from that point of view. But it is notoriously the fact that it is difficult to base a judgment in such cases, and I hope to show that the Admiralty in these matters are very much more severe than the courts. In one respect, I could claim in the cases which I am raising the Admiralty have offended, not only against the spirit of justice, but also against the recommendations which were made to the Admiralty by the courts in which these cases were tried.
The Civil Lord has all the details about these cases. In the first case, Mr. X pleaded guilty to a charge of gross indecency, saying that he was drunk at the time. The Recorder placed him on probation for three years, and orderd him to contribute five guineas costs. He also said that he hoped the dockyard would not discharge Mr. X. This man had 20 years' service. He was established. He not only lost his job, but his claim to about £100 gratuity. For a period of several weeks he was on half-pay while the Admiralty were making up their mind. He could not apply for another job, and, even on the strict monetary calculation, he has suffered at the hands of the Admiralty a penalty very much more severe than the court decided to inflict upon him.
Let me take the case of Y. He also pleaded guilty to a charge of gross indecency. He was discharged, as the court felt there were mitigating circumstances. He was 42 years old. He also had a long and clean record of service in the dockyard, and it was the first time he had been involved in such a charge. The court considering the case took the view that the other person involved was really the guilty party. That man had, in fact, been guilty on many previous occasions. I think it is fair to say, in this case, that

Mr. Y was guilty of a momentary aberration. That is not my opinion only, but the opinion of the judge considering the case, who said in court, "Get back to work and behave yourself." But the Admiralty said, "Oh, no; we are going to inflict a more severe penalty than the court." The man has lost his gratuity, and he has small chance of getting another job.
In the third case, Z also pleaded guilty to the same offence. He was put on probation for three years. Again, the Recorder dealing with the case asked that the man should be taken back, and expressed the hope that the dockyard would not discharge him. He had had 25 years' service in the dockyard, and was an established man. He had a good record. His appeal was backed fully by his trade union. As a result of his discharge from the dockyard he has lost £200 in gratuity, and cannot get another job.
I take these three examples partly because they are among the most recent ones I have had, and partly because in each case what I am asking for is backed by the court which judged the case; and each of the men, apart from this offence, had had, as far as I know, an excellent record at the dockyard, and in every other respect. The community, and not only the dockyard, has to protect itself against these crimes; but that is primarily the business of the courts. Sometimes the courts impose heavy sentences. But the court examines all the facts. In the courts proper weight is given to mitigating circumstances. The Recorder is able to make up his mind after hearing all the facts, and after hearing the case for the accused. The Admiralty are not able to carry out the same function.
An astonishing state of affairs appears from the correspondence I have had with the Civil Lord of the Admiralty on these matters. In one case about which I wrote to him recently, I was told that the Admiralty had not been informed about the Recorders appeal that one man should not be dismissed.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby): The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby)  indicated assent.

Mr. Foot: The Civil Lord nods his head. How do the Admiralty make up their mind whether they will discharge a man? Did they get a full account of the court case?

Mr. Digby: In most cases there is an official communication; in others there is not. In one of these cases there was an official communication; in the other there was not.

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to the Civil Lord. If the Admiralty are going to make up their mind whether to discharge a man they ought at least to examine the evidence given to the court. If they did examine the evidence, how was it that they did not have the appeal of the Recorder, or the Deputy Recorder, that the man should not be discharged?

Mr. Digby: We did know that; but the point is that the Recorder, or the Deputy Recorder, did not feel sufficiently about it to send representations to us in the one case: in the other case, he did.

Mr. Foot: There must still be a misunderstanding. If before deciding to discharge a man the Admiralty went through the evidence of the court case, then I should have thought that in each case the Admiralty would be aware of the appeal made by the Recorder. At any rate, in all these three cases the court came to the conclusion that no fine should be imposed and that the best chance of the individual making himself a decent citizen again was for him to go back to employment. The Admiralty step in and impose a penalty far more severe than the court contemplated, a penalty which may dog these men for the rest of their lives.
It should be taken into account in dockyard towns like Plymouth that, if a man is sacked from the dockyard, it may be that he will have great difficulty in finding another job. The reasons given on a man's card for his discharge from the dockyard may condemn him to a life sentence of unemployment. It is therefore a very serious action on the part of the Admiralty.
I have seen all these men whose cases I have mentioned, and indeed others, some of them concerned with other kinds of offences. Some of them are the most pitiful people that I have seen in my constituency, because they have no hope of getting another job. I have come away from these interviews filled with a sense of fury at the bureaucratic inhumanity which I believe has been applied in these cases. I hope that I have stated my case tonight as coolly as I can. I believe that

the Admiralty should reconsider the whole way in which they are dealing with these cases, because they are imposing sentences which may ruin a man's life and in imposing them over-riding in some cases the decisions of the law and leaving the man utterly defenceless. He may not state his case to the Admiralty in the same way as he does to the court, and his defence in the last resort is to bring the matter to the House of Commons and see if the Admiralty will change their mind.
I ask the Civil Lord if he will look at the whole question again and review not only the particular cases which I have mentioned, but also others which we have had in the past year or so. I hope that in future the Admiralty will pay much greater regard to what is said by the Recorder and the judge, because they have more experience in these matters than the Admiralty are ever likely to have. I ask the Admiralty to stop what appears to be becoming the practice of making almost automatic the discharge of a man from the dockyard if he happens to have been involved in a court case. I hope that the Admiralty will revert to what appeared to be the slightly better practice which was followed just after the war.
It is repugnant to our sense of justice that a man should be tried twice for the same offence, but I should have thought that it is even more repugnant that a man whom the court deliberately decides should not be punished should be punished by the Admiralty for the same alleged offence. In all the Royal Dockyards this question may concern only a dozen or so people a year, but, whatever the number may be, certainly the consequences for the individual are very serious. I ask the Admiralty to reconsider the issue as a matter of simple justice.

11.4 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby): The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) has confined himself almost entirely to the cases of those who have been convicted of civil offences. At the beginning of his remarks he also made a number of references to the closed fortnight which will take place in Admiralty establishments and dockyards next year. That is really outside the terms of the notice which the hon. Member gave me, but that decision was only


reached after careful thought and in view of overwhelming arguments in favour of that course. It is indeed only a restoration of the pre-war practice, because before the war the dockyards were closed for the holiday period.
The main question with which the hon. Gentleman dealt was that of workpeople who are convicted of civil offences of one kind or another. I am glad to take the chance to tell the House that only recently I have looked into the whole of our practice in this question. We have reached certain decisions about it which may slightly modify the practice in coming years. I should like to deal with the question as a whole and not confine myself entirely to the types of case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, because all three types he mentioned have been homosexual offences.
Our aim in all these cases is to be as humane as we can and to assist rehabilitation without overlooking the interests of our other employees. The kind of question we must ask ourselves after men unfortunately have been convicted of offences of one kind or another is, "Can the man be relied upon to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and without risk to other employees?" The case of the hon. Member, as I understand it, is that we should be more lenient in all types of case, but particularly in the three to which he referred; that the time has come for more lenient treatment for them, and that where the court expresses an opinion the Admiralty should inevitably follow that opinion. Then he said that nobody should be punished twice for the same offence.
The short answer to those points is that, of course, there is at the moment some public anxiety about sexual offences of this nature and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is considering the matter. I admit that there have been rather a lot of cases of this kind down at Devonport. They have been more numerous there in recent years than they have been elsewhere in other Naval establishments. With regard to the opinions expressed by the Recorders and others after convictions have been made for these offences, I must point out that the magistrate cannot know the full circumstances of a certain man's employment as do the naval authorities.
With reference to the point about no man being punished twice for the same offence, of course that is not the intention, but we know that in many branches of life when people are convicted of a civil offence that may have unfortunate consequences for them in their employment. For example, some people are convicted of offences which result in their being deprived of their driving licences. In some cases that must mean the loss of the type of livelihood to which they have been accustomed.
I come to a somewhat longer answer to these various points. As the hon. Member said, Home Dockyard Regulations Article 40 lays down perfectly clearly that those convicted of any serious offence against the law will be liable to immediate dismissal. Of course, we attempt to look very carefully into the individual circumstances in each case in applying this rule. It is not applied blindly but, in regard to established men in particular, it is regarded as one of the conditions of their establishment that they should follow good conduct.
As a result of the review which we recently had, fresh guidance has now been sent out to the various establishments about the attitude towards the different types of offence, although every case will have to be judged on its merits. The main considerations which I think must apply are such as these: whether the offence was committed in the yard or place of work or whether it was committed outside working hours; whether it was a first offence or whether offences of this nature had been committed before; also the nature of the offence, and whether it is liable to make a man a bad influence or a risk to other workpeople in the yard. Those are very relevant points in connection with the three cases which the hon. Member has raised. In the dockyard at Devonport we have over 2,100 apprentices and yard boys, a very large number of juveniles, and we cannot be indifferent to the consequences of continuing to employ those who have been convicted of this kind of offence in the yards. Indeed, I very much doubt if the parents of these boys would like it if we were to continue so to do.
Another point which we take into account when considering these cases is the length of service of the man concerned and his good conduct up to the


time of the offence. But first and foremost, I think the Admiralty have a duty to consider their obligation to look after the interests of the other workpeople, and particularly the juveniles in the establishment. Even then we are prepared in some circumstances to consider a transfer to another establishment where that might get over the difficulty. I think that probably as a result of this review, and the fresh guidance which has gone out to the establishments, in the future it may be found in some general cases—I am not now referring to the one type of case—that treatment may be more lenient than in the past.
With regard to the three individual cases which have been mentioned, I think the hon. Member was under a misunderstanding, because he spoke of one of the men having been discharged. My understanding is that in fact all three were convicted. Although they were put on probation for three different periods they were all three convicted of the offence.

Mr. Foot: I understood that all three of them pleaded guilty, but that none of them had a fine imposed.

Mr. Digby: But they were convicted of the offence and two out of the three committed the offence in the yard. So that in each case there were circumstances which it was difficult to overlook. I think it is correct to say that they were working in the main dockyard establishment, with a large number of juveniles, and where supervision is difficult.

Mr. Foot: But could not they have been sent to some other part of the dockyard, as the hon. Gentleman himself suggested? All these men were people with first-class records. In each case the Recorder made a special plea because of the policy pursued by the Admiralty. Surely that should weigh with the Admiralty? It is very strange that the hon. Gentleman should say that the Admiralty

know better than the court. If there is any information which should have been revealed, it certainly has not been revealed to me.

Mr. Digby: I am not sure that the court would have understood the situation in which these men worked. I can assure the hon. Member that I looked at these cases personally and I came to the conclusion that, in the circumstances, it was not practicable to keep them on in that dockyard. Indeed, it was not found desirable to move them to other establishments, if that had been possible, taking their trade into account.
I must stress again that it is impossible to lay down any hard and fast rules where men are convicted of civil offences. The bearing of the particular offence on their work must be taken fully into account in each case. The nature of the offence is important—for example, the theft of property in the dockyard. We are here, of course, dealing with public property, and we feel that it is our duty to do everything we can to discourage the theft of public property.
Let me say once again that we feel we have a special responsibility towards the very large number of juveniles we have in all home dockyards. Where these men have obviously made only one mistake we are anxious to do all we can for their rehabilitation, butin a number of circumstances we have to appear to be rather severe. We have looked at all three cases very carefully. I have looked at them again since the hon. Member announced that he would raise the matter on the Adjournment, but I very much regret that I cannot hold out any hope of reversing our decision in any of these three cases.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes past Eleven o'Clock